Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Factories (Devon and Cornwall)

Mr. Hicks: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional funds are to be made available to the Development Commission for advance factories and nursery factory units in Devon and Cornwall; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I have yet to announce the Development Commission's grant-in-aid for 1979–80. This year £15·5 million was made available compared with £7·6 million in 1977–78.
The Commission expects to spend about £8 million on factory building this year, more than twice as much as last year. Of this, about £1·7 million will go to Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Hicks: Does the Minister agree that, judging by past performance, his Department should be more aggressive in its negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in respect of the need to gain a reallocation of resources for this purpose, particularly bearing in mind what is given to similar agencies in Wales and Scotland?

Mr. Howell: I should have thought that the fact that the grant went up this year from £7·6 million to £15·5 million—more than double—was an example of the Government's concern for the need for development. The hon. Gentleman must not ask for more public expenditure, and he must not ask for any reallocation of resources when so many of our social problems are to be found in the industrial cities.

Liverpool Airport

Mr. David Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available grants under the partnership programme for the improvement and development of Liverpool airport.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): The Liverpool inner city partnership programme contains no specific proposals for grants in relation to Liverpool airport.

Mr. Hunt: Notwithstanding that answer, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Liverpool airport is vital to the future of industry and commerce on Merseyside? If he does, will he take immediate steps to make representations to his colleagues to stop the conspiracy on the part of British Airways and the Department of Trade to downgrade Liverpool airport and transfer its passengers to Merseyside?

Mr. Shore: Such words as"conspiracy"do not help the case. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade presented to the House a White Paper following two or three years of serious discussion of what is the best framework for a national airports policy. Although I am appreciative of the role of Speke in Liverpool, I think the hon. Gentleman will recall that it was Manchester airport that was classified as playing the leading role in the North-West region.

Mr. Loyden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent improvements at Liverpool airport. Does he agree that it is a vicious circle if an airport such as Liverpool which is trying to expand under the"C"category is at the same time faced with a lack of cash for the provision of proper terminal facilities?

Mr. Shore: That is not a question for me, but, in so far as we are talking about the inner city programme and the Liverpool partnership, I think it is right to remind the House that the programme which has been agreed for the next three years does not contain proposals for improving Speke airport.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister explain why parts of Garston, which are five miles from the inner city of Liverpool,


are included in the partnership? Is it because it is a highly critical marginal seat?

Mr. Loyden: Go round Garston and have a look.

Mr. Shore: Garston is really an enclave which has similar characteristics to the rest of the Liverpool inner city area. Garston was included at the express request, the unanimous request, of Liverpool city council, which the hon. Gentleman should know is not dominated by any one party.

Mr. Heller: Is it not clear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) reveals a total ignorance of the situation in Liverpool and of the fact that Garston happens to be one of the oldest parts of Liverpool, as are parts of Walton? If the hon. Gentleman really knew his area he would know that.

Mr. Shore: I agree with my hon. Friend that anyone who knows the area —I know it too—will agree that Garston has many of the characteristics of the rest of the inner city area. Therefore, it was entirely appropriate, and the result of an objective consideration, that it was brought within the inner city area.

Local Authorities (Government Grants)

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts of Government grants to local councils over each of the past five years; and what will be the amount of grants for the year 1979–80.

Mr. Shore: Over 70 different grants are paid to local authorities. By far the largest of these is the rate support grant. The 1978 rate support grant order now before the House envisages that the needs element of rate support grant for 1979–80 will be £4,715 million at outturn prices. I shall publish figures of needs element and of total rate support grant for the past five years in the Official Report.

Mr. Wainwright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the metropolitan district in South Yorkshire is dismayed at what has been happening there over the last two or three years, that there are large areas of dereliction and that there are pockets of high unemployment? Will he do more for this area to make certain that it gets

its fair share, taking into account what has been missing in the past?

Mr. Shore: I am aware of the difficulties in the South Yorkshire area, and in the Dearne Valley in particular. However, I remind my hon. Friend that under the rate support grant for 197–0, which we have just completed, Barnsley will gain the equivalent of a 2·2p rate, Doncaster a 1·2p rate and Rotherham a 2·7p rate. Thus, in terms of RSG, I believe that the area is being helped. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been able also to assist in approving the South Yorkshire canal scheme, to which I know that he attaches great importance.

Mr. Pardoe: Has the Secretary of State, in assessing the balance of funds under the RSG to go to the rural and inner city areas, studied the report of the Child Poverty Action Group entitled"Rural Poverty "? Has he noticed that that report says that the problems in the rural areas will reach crisis proportions in the next five years and that, over the last 15 years, far too much public money has gone from the rural areas into the inner city areas?

Mr. Shore: I am aware that there are problems in rural areas, and we try to help them in particular ways, particularly through the Development Commission helping with small advance factories in areas of unemployment in rural districts. I hesitate to come to more than a preliminary view at the moment because we are looking at the whole range of problems and reports connected with rural areas, but I would certainly not use the word"crisis"on the basis of the information that I have at present.

Mr. Hardy: Although the grant for next year may be a little better than the unsatisfactory amount provided for the current year, does not my right hon. Friend consider that the present determination of rate support insufficiently regards the acute need in older industrial areas, particularly those with small communities and those in the coalfields, and that if their needs were adequately reflected the rate support grant arrangements for South Yorkshire would be much better than they are likely to be for next year?

Mr. Shore: The rate support grant tries, above all, to identify and measure need


in as objective a way as we can find. Although there are problems in the older industrial towns, taking the national picture which emerges through the RSG, it appears that the large cities and conurbation areas, and certainly their central districts, have greater per capita needs than the smaller industrial towns.

Mr. Skinner: But is my right hon. Friend aware that in Derbyshire the local Tory newspaper, the Derbyshire Times, ran a story last week that he had deprived the county council and thereby the ratepayers of about £9·2 million? May I be assured that this is merely a question of redistribution, that the district councils, and the other councils within Derbyshire which also levy a rate, will get compensating amounts and that therefore that £9 million is a false figure?

Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His question gives me a chance to make a general point and a particular one. In fact, the RSG total affecting the county of Derbyshire is an increase of 0·5p in terms of the rate, which is equivalent to over £750,000. But the main change, as my hon. Friend has suggested, is that the needs element will be paid direct to the districts, which I believe to be right. There is no reason why the county precept plus the district rate should change overall, but there will obviously be differences between the two. In some districts rates may fall, but in others counties must obviously increase the precept because they are no longer getting as much of the RSG as they did.

Mr. Sainsbury: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the RSG being allocated in as objective a manner as possible. Can he explain why the factors"persons over 65"and"persons over 75 ", which must have a major influence on the responsibilities of local authorities, are not used as determinants in the regression analysis in the needs element?

Mr. Shore: I suspect that the reason is that there are other factors in the package which goes into the RSG needs element and which are reasonable surrogates for the factors to which the hon. Gentleman pointed.
Following is the information:



The figures, at outturn prices, are as follows:



Needs element £million
Total rate support grant (needs, resources and domestic element £million


1974–75
2,855
4,384


1975–76
3,489
5,788


1976–77
3,817
6,295


1977–78
3,923
6,470


1978–79
4,306
7,055


The figures for 1978–79 are based on the first increase order.

Water Resources

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his assessment of water supply resources for England in 1979.

Mr. Denis Howell: Assuming average winter rainfall, normal supplies could be maintained in most districts next year even if the summer is dry.
A dry winter followed by a dry summer such as we had in 1975–76 would probably result in shortage in some parts of the country next year. However, this should be less severe than it was in 1976 because we now have more water in storage.
In addition, the considerable number of schemes put into operation during the last two years have provided more storage capacity and an increased ability to transfer water within and between regions.

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that that assumption of normal winter rainfall does not seem well-founded? Is he confident that the water authorities—particularly the South-West authority—have taken action since 1976 to ensure that the people living there do not suffer from the extraordinary lack of water that they suffered in the summer of 1976?

Mr. Howell: I am glad to report that, since we gave so much attention to the South-West two years ago, that water authority, with the full approval and support of the Government, has carried out 31 major schemes which have improved the situation there. In spite of the dry autumn in that area, assuming that we have average rainfall from now on and that people there continue to save water,


we should be all right even in a dry summer.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that many of us appreciate the considerable steps which the Government have taken to improve water arrangements, but is he also aware that one need that remains is the production of a water Bill for the House to consider which will deal with the present gross anomaly affecting those who are not connected to main sewers?

Mr. Howell: There is a need for a water Bill to deal with many of the anomalies left by the Water Act 1973. We hope still to be able to introduce it at an early stage.

Mr. Alison: But what about the results of the famous, or infamous, court case in connection with Daymond, with the effect that there will be retrospective demands on some ratepayers going back four years? Can the right hon. Gentleman do something urgent about that?

Mr. Howell: There is no need to, because most water authorities over-provided as an insurance against Daymond and have not been called upon to pay the amounts that they expected to pay. I think that the hon. Gentleman is a little out of date.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister bear in mind that he can always rely on some of my constituents to pray for rain in the event of another drought? Will he bear that in mind, in view of the beneficial results that it had last time?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very well served in that respect in my own constituency.

Rent Acts (Review)

Mr. Brooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the report on his Department's review of the Rent Acts will include recommendations relating to harassment.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): We have increased the maximum fine on summary conviction for harassment to £1,000 in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and at the same time strengthened the civil remedies in the Administration of Justice Act 1977. I cannot yet say whether

there will be further measures emanating from the review of the Rent Acts.

Mr. Brooke: Given the small proportion of complaints against harassment which reach the courts, does the Minister feel that the laws against harassment are operating satisfactorily?

Mr. Freeson: There are some outstanding cases which reach the media, and we are concerned about them. A number are closely intertwined with alleged loopholes. I say"alleged ". Some concern loopholes in the legislation which we are looking at in the context of the review. We must bear in mind that many incidents of harassment are dealt with on a negotiating basis. Some local authorities have successfully established tenant-landlord relations officers who help a great deal in liaison, negotiation and settlement of disputes between landlords and tenants in the inner areas of London and in other parts of the country.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Will it be possible in the forthcoming housing Bill to deal with some of the loopholes to which my right hon. Friend referred? Is he aware of the extent to which the decision in Somma v. Hazelhurst has made the application of the Rent Acts almost a voluntary exercise on the part of landlords? Will he take steps, as a matter of urgency, to remedy the situation?

Mr. Freeson: We do not have it in mind to draft the prospective housing Bill to deal with matters arising under the Rent Acts review. As I have indicated today and on previous occasions, in the context of the Rent Acts review we are looking at various items of evidence about loopholes in the Acts which relate to harassment and other matters. In due course we shall no doubt be legislating on that basis.

Mr. Scott: Is there not a substantial argument for a new court of first instance specialising in landlord and tenant matters, with the emphasis on reconciliation? Will that consideration be included in the Department's review?

Mr. Freeson: Yes, indeed. We have already published our intention to consider the idea of a landlord-tenant tribunal. We have also indicated that in the review we shall be looking at the possibility of merging tribunals with rent officer facilities, but no conclusions have


yet been reached. There are problems in this area. I should hesitate at this stage to say that we have come to a firm conclusion on the matter. Certainly it has played an important part in our thinking during the review.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister promise an early report aimed at restricting the landlord's right to harass and evict?
Secondly, will he block such loopholes as were exposed in the astonishing case of Somma v. Hazelhurst, where the landlord obtained eviction because of a so-called licence permitting him to move in and use a one-bedroom flat tenanted by a young couple? Surely that is an abuse of the Acts. Will my right hon. Friend close the loophole?

Mr. Freeson: The case to which my hon. Friend referred is one of the areas of concern which come under the general heading of loopholes which we are looking at in the review. We are concerned with the loophole cases which come to our attention, but it would be wrong to overstate the extent of the problem. The Rent Act as a whole, for the majority of tenants benefiting from it, is working well and smoothly. However, that does not mean that we should not look at particular cases which come to our attention.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister take the opportunity of the review to extend Rent Act protection to local authorities which are not housing authorities? Why should the tenant of a county council which owns a number of properties not have the same protection against eviction as the tenant of a private landlord?

Mr. Freeson: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to public sector tied cottages or service tenancies. If he is referring to local authority tenants, I can tell him that we are going to deal with that aspect, as we have clearly indicated on a number of occasions, in the context of the prospective housing Bill. We propose to introduce security of tenure for public sector tenants.

Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister for Housing and Construction understand that in this sector of the property market there are many aspects of concern about the diminishing availability of houses to rent? For the right hon. Gentleman now,

after the life of an entire Parliament, to go on talking about a review which has been in existence for over three years is a scandal of complacency.

Mr. Freeson: The review has not been in existence for three years. [HON. MEMBERS:"How long? "] If the hon. Gentleman had checked the record of our announcements about the review of housing policy he would have established that we announced our intention to undertake this review and formally to initiate it arising from that housing policy review. Indeed, we referred to it in the Green Paper, which I am sure all Opposition Members will have read word for word.
On the general point about the reduction of rented accommodation, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's concern and no doubt his implicit desire to see such accommodation retained and possibly extended. Therefore, I trust that he will stop going round the country calling upon local authorities to sell rented accommodation.

New Towns (Hospital Facilities)

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what role he plays in an advisory or consultative capacity in the provision and maintenance of adequate hospital facilities in new towns.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I discuss particular difficulties with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services from time to time and this Department has regular contacts with the Department of Health and Social Security about problems associated with the development of health services in new towns. These liaison arrangements are supplemented by direct contact between new town development corporations and the appropriate regional and area health authorities.

Mr. Corbett: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while this liaison is going on, new towns, including Hemel Hempstead, still do not have the bricks and mortar to provide the new acute hospital facilities which are urgently needed? Will he look at the arrangements to see whether he can persuade those responsible for the development of new towns to include hospital developments at the time of building amid all else that is new and splendid in the new towns?

Mr. Barnett: I am well aware of the situation described by my hon. Friend. As he knows, I met a deputation from the Dacorum hospital action group in September, when the argument was impressively put forward. But, as he knows, the provision of hospital facilities is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I understand that proposals for the provision of facilities in the northwest district of Hertfordshire are now under consideration by my right hon. Friend and that my hon. Friend's concern is being taken fully into account.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not a farce that, for instance, the new town in my constituency was set up 10 years ago and that it took 10 years to get £200,000 out of the Department? Is not there now a strong argument for looking at every new town and providing proper, adequate facilities to meet what the Secretary of State called extra resources for disadvantaged persons?

Mr. Barnett: I cannot make any comment on what may or may not have happened 10 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given some assistance from the new towns budget to make provision for the increased population that is being received by the new town in his constituency. As I emphasised, the provision of hospital resources nationwide is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend, and he has to take decisions in the light of the growth of population in different areas, including new towns.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that exactly the same situation obtains in Telford new town, this is a question concerning the machinery of Government? We want better planning machinery. Does he agree that it is a waste of resources to build houses to which people cannot be attracted because facilities in the area are inadequate?

Mr. Barnett: I think that my hon. Friend is being a little unfair. I should have thought that, within the area of their responsibilities, new town development corporations do remarkably well in providing adequate facilities. It would obviously not be right for the full facilities to be provided initially, though they may be planned for the stage at which the

new town development is completed. Considerations of that kind presumably influence my right hon. Friend when making decisions about the time that a new district general hospital or whatever may have been planned should begin.

Mr. Hal Miller: As a result of the television programme which the Minister saw, does he agree that the lack of health facilities is the main preoccupation of the people of Redditch? Can he tell us what has happened to the working party made up from his Department and that of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, which the then Minister of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), told me he was establishing to remedy the problem that new towns are established without adequate health facilities, be they casualty services, health centres or hospitals, as in Redditch?

Mr. Barnett: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer here and now, but I shall write to him on the matter that he has raised.

Domestic Rates

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the likely average increase in domestic rate in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what will he the rise in domestic rates in 197–0 as a result of his rate support grant settlement.

Mr. Shore: The settlement is compatible with the national average of domestic rate increases remaining in single figures. I am assuming that local authorities will think it right to link their rating for contingency allowances to the assumptions made in the cash limits, and to plan to make some drawing from balances. It is for individual local authorities to decide increases in domestic rates, but I assume that the authorities will act with their accustomed responsibility.

Mr. Sainsbury: Is the Secretary of State aware that the local authority associations and, indeed, most informed and independent observers are predicting that, inevitably, rate increases will be well up


into double figures? Does he not recognise that, at least in part, this is a direct consequence of allocating the rate support grant largely on the basis of past patterns of expenditure by local authorities, so that inevitably those authorities that are wasteful and extravagant are encouraged and those that are prudent are penalised?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shore: Do I hear a note of dissent from London and metropolitan Conservative Members to those cheers? However, I turn to both questions.
I put it to the hon. Gentleman that treasurers and other commentators often make a gloomy prediction about the rates. Indeed, they almost make a habit of it. I believe that they will have an opportunity to reflect more carefully upon the situation as it affects their individual counties before they actually determine and strike the rate for the year 1979–80.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, he is really on to the usual and familiar problem of the proper distribution of the needs element of rate support grant between county, city and town. When we talk about an average national figure for rates, we mean an average. That means that some areas, although they have been greatly helped by the 2p safety net and other devices that we put in, will have to increase rates above the average. There should be no doubt about that in anyone's mind.

Mr. Durant: Is the Secretary of State aware that in spite of the new system in the needs element Berkshire ratepayers will have a rate rise well into double figures? Is he further aware that the local authorities feel that he has provided insufficient resources to cover future pay awards, which is something that puts pressure on the rates? Will he resist the proposed pay increase for manual workers which appears as though it may go above 5 per cent?

Mr. Shore: The pay question is, of course, a factor. But we have made plain our expectations in this area. The Government's pay and counter-inflation policies are implicit in the rate support grant settlement. In regard to Berkshire, I do not know what the local circumstances are which will lead to changes. The hon. Gentleman should remember

what I said earlier, namely, that this is the first time that there will be a direct payment of the needs element to the districts. That may well mean that counties will have to precept more. But it does not mean that that totality of rates in the area will be greater.

Mr. Spriggs: Prior to completing his assessment for the next financial year, will my right hon. Friend take into account local authorities such as St. Helens which have demolished hundreds of houses which were unfit for human habitation in order to provide decent homes for people?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend can rest assured that housing factors which are relevant to the establishment of differential needs per head will be tested and included in the rate support grant system. Indeed, a housing factor is included in the package this time.

Mr. Alison: The Secretary of State talked about gloomy forecasts. Does he recall that, although he forecast under double figures rate increases for this year, some rate increases were above that level? Wigan was a case in point, where the rates went up by 18 per cent., and in York they went up by 21 per cent. If, as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman has a concern for the ratepayer, does he accept that he cannot deal in averages and that he must address himself to the problem of people who suffer massive rate increases? If there are to be rate increases of 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. this year, how can people be expected to accept 5 per cent. wage settlements?

Mr. Shore: It is ridiculous for any Secretary of State, taking account of all the different circumstances of local authorities, to attempt to couch his forecasts in anything other than average national terms. An average is an average, which means that some increases will be below and some will be above. I therefore put it to the hon. Gentleman that in looking at particular figures—it may well be that this year, as in past years, and under previous Governments, there will be swings at both ends of the range—he should look at the total circumstance, including the actual size of rate bills which are paid on average in the areas concerned.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is deep feeling about the disparities in the rate support grant? For instance, in Sheffield, where I come from, where a good council has husbanded its resources very carefully over the years, people feel that they have been very ill done by. This is the talking point throughout Sheffield. Will my right hon. Friend look at this a little more carefully and explain more clearly the criteria on which he bases his judgments?

Mr. Shore: I am aware that Sheffield, unlike most of the major cities, has had a small reduction in its rate support grant this year. There are reasons for that which, frankly, lie in the particular package of needs factors which have been identified. But, as my hon. Friend knows, I am willing to meet representatives of his city—they have already been in touch with me—to discuss the whole matter with them just as soon as we are free of the rate support grant debate.

Local Government

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he expects to complete before Christmas his consultations with the local authority associations regarding local government reorganisation.

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received concerning the transfer back to major city authorities of powers removed from them in recent local authority reorganisation.

Mr. Shore: The Government will be consulting the local authority associations and other bodies on the detailed proposals for organic change before legislation is introduced. I hope that these consultations can be completed fairly early in 1979. I have received representations on this issue from the local authority associations, from the nine major non-metropolitan cities, from a group of medium-sized districts, and from a large number of individual local authorities.

Mr. Morrison: In his recent Guildhall speech the Prime Minister referred to restoring powers to the big nine cities, plus Norwich. Was he, in mentioning Norwich, implying that towns of that sort

and size would, without exception, have powers given to them? If so, what will be the minimum size for a town before powers can be given to it? If that is not what he was implying, why did the Prime Minister mention Norwich?

Mr. Shore: I should not want to incur Mr. Speaker's displeasure by again reading to the House the statement that I made on 3rd August, which I think the House will recall, in which I set out very carefully what I had in mind for the whole range of districts which would be affected by organic change. I should like to help the hon. Gentleman with his interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks. What the Prime Minister referred to were the big nine which, in a sense, are only distinct from others in that for them we are prepared to consider restoring education as well as other services, such as social services.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in one of the big nine—the city of Leicester—the Tory-controlled housing committee has this week recommended the slashing of the housing programme in this stress area from the original figure of 1,000 to 250? Does he not feel that this doctrinaire, despicable act is scarcely likely to encourage the return to Leicester of powers which in other respects it would be so welcome to have back?

Mr. Shore: I heard of the recommendation of the housing committee in Leicester virtually to halve its housing programme this year. I believe that that decision has yet to be reported to the full council. That disturbs me because it is happening in far too many Conservative-controlled authorities where there is an undoubted need for rented housing. That is to be deplored.
I hope that the House will appreciate my difficulty. Only a few days ago we allocated resources to each of the housing district authorities on the basis of their considered requests to us for their housing programmes. It makes for chaos to have these sudden changes and lurches in housing policy at the beginning of a housing year.

Mr. Heseltine: Is the Secretary of State aware that the collapse of his public sector housing programme is taking place in Labour as well as Conservative-controlled


areas because of the housing costs imposed by the Government?
If the Prime Minister was referring in his speech at the Mansion House to the big nine cities, why did he refer to Norwich?

Mr. Shore: In his Mansion House speech the Prime Minister was referring to our popular proposal to help to undo the worst nonsenses of the 1972 Act. That is what we intend to do. Our proposals go well beyond the big nine. For the social services, the proposals will include the possibility of Norwich and a number of other cities of a similar size regaining those powers which they were able to manage sensibly before.
It is extraordinary that the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should make that point about the housing programme. Between two-thirds and 70 per cent. of housing authorities are now in the hands of the Conservative Party. I he hon. Gentleman and his colleagues constantly urge that those authorities should cut back. The hon. Gentleman should not attempt to duck that responsibility.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the local authorities which are to have their powers restored to them will wish to congratulate him and the Government on their firm action against the extraordinary proposition from some county councils? They would appreciate it if the Minister could specify as soon as possible which powers are to be restored.

Mr. Shore: I am anxious that the matter should progress beyond the stage that we had reached when I made my statement on 3rd August. That is what we shall be doing as soon as we embark upon the consultations. I believe that there is wide support on this side of the House, but I do not accept that this measure will not command considerable support from the Opposition.

New Towns (Industrial and Commercial Assets)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his plans for the ownership and control of industrial and commercial assets in the new towns after the winding up of development corporations.

Mr. Guy Barnett: It remains Government policy that the Commission for the New Towns will own and manage these assets. I am still considering the terms and conditions under which local authorities could acquire some of these assets.

Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people are worried that the transfer of control over industrial and commercial assets from a locally based new town development corporation to a national authority such as the Commission for the New Towns might diminish local influence and add to bureaucracy? Should not our ultimate aim still be the original one proposed by those of us who are connected with the new towns movement, namely to transfer the assets to the control of the local authority after the development corporations have been wound up?

Mr. Barnett: I should make it clear that the Commission for the New Towns has undertaken to ensure that a large measure of responsibility rests with the local manager in each town or group of towns. Consultations are now taking place between members of the Commission and individual local authorities which are reaching their wind-up date or where the new town corporation has already been dissolved. The consultations are based on finding the right consultative arrangements between the local authority and the local manager of those assets.
We recognise that such consultations might have to be at both officer and member level. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we wish the local authorities to have the maximum say in the way in which these assets are managed.
My hon. Friend also asked whether the assets might one day come into the ownership of the local authorities. He knows our views about that. As these are taxpayers' assets, we believe that it would not be right or fair to other towns to transfer assets to those towns which were new towns. On the other hand, we have made it clear that we want to make it possible for those local authorities that wish to take over these assets, and can afford to do so, to do that later.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must not enter into long arguments. I shall call


one more hon. Member to ask a supplementary question and then I shall move on.

Mr. Michael Morris: Why does the Minister not simply sell off those assets and save some public money for once?

Mr. Barnett: Because I think that we have a better regard for the public interest than the hon. Member.

Sewerage (North-West Region)

Mr. George Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has held discussions with representatives of the North-West water authority about the cost of replacing the antiquated sewerage system in the region; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Denis Howell: I have had no direct discussions with representatives of the authority, but officers of the Department maintain a close liaison with the authority's management team on this subject. I understand that it is not yet possible to make any accurate estimate of the probable costs involved, and I can add little at this stage to the reply that I gave to the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and Rochdale (Mr. Smith) on 27th July.

Mr. Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the obsolete sewerage system in the North-West is a consequence of many years of neglect? Would it not be totally unfair if householders were called upon to foot the bill, particularly as the rate rebate formula does not apply to water rate contributions?

Mr. Howell: There have been many years of neglect and it is a serious problem, particularly in the North-West. I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend, the local authorities and the water authority whenever they wish to do so. There must be more detailed surveys to find out what is involved before we can hold discussions. Householders will have to pay in one form or another, however the replacement is financed. I understand that the water authority has resolved to increase its capital programme over the next five years by about 50 per cent.

Mr. Farr: Before regional water authorities are allowed to engage in huge and lavish public expenditure schemes, will

the Minister devise a method by which they are more accountable locally for the money that they spend?

Mr. Howell: I cannot remember the hon. Gentleman being in the Lobby with us when we voted against the Water Bill in 1973. There is a serious problem in our old industrial cities, which is caused by the collapse of underground sewerage facilities. That problem must be tackled. It does not involve the use of unnecessary or lavish public expenditure. That expenditure is essential in the public interest.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a frightening picture of underground dereliction in the North-West? Is it not crazy that under the water equalisation grants system the North-West of England will pay £750,000 to the national pool in order to subsidise areas such as East Anglia?

Mr. Howell: When the capital programme gets under way in the North-West, the equalisation picture will be different. That is one reason why I shall be happy to meet the authority to discuss the matter.

Housing Finance

Mr. Nelson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what account is taken of the proceeds of sale of council houses to tenants by local authorities when his Department approves and finances the housing investment programmes of such authorities.

Mr. Freeson: No account is taken of the proceeds of council house sales, or other receipts, when annual cash allocations under the housing investment programme system are determined for individual authorities.

Mr. Nelson: Will the Minister rethink that policy? He does not accept the Conservative policy of enabling council tenants to buy their properties, but should it not be common ground that if we are to deal adequately with the homeless problem the degree and extent of council house sales should be taken into account in considering a council's housing investment programme? Would not that lead to a more dynamic investment policy and housing programme by local authorities?

Mr. Freeson: Policies of indiscriminate sales do no good to people who are in


need of housing. Secondly, on the technical point, to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests would produce double counting in allocations, because account is taken of housing receipts, from whatever quarter, in enhancing the total national budget for housing. To do it again when we come to the individual allocations of that national budget would result in double counting. It is an unnecessary device.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wrecking policy of the GLC in housing is destroying any chance of London's housing problem being solved for many years ahead?

Mr. Freeson: I am aware particularly, as I think I have said previously in the House and elsewhere, of the repugnant policy of touting empty properties around the market while people are in need of housing. We are studying the matter closely. If necessary, we shall be prepared to take action in due course.

Mr. Heseltine: If the Minister for Housing and Construction is so concerned about the indiscriminate sale of council houses, does he intend to take powers to prevent it by the housing Bill which he is about to introduce into the House?

Mr. Freeson: Our policy stands as it was stated quite clearly in April 1974, within three or four weeks of our being elected to office. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman advocates the need for more rented housing, he will take care to cease the practice of encouraging Tory local authorities to sell rented housing, for which he himself is claiming there is a need.

Peak National Park

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any further applications from foreign companies for quarrying in the Peak national park.

Mr. Denis Howell: There are no such applications before my right hon. Friend. Applications for planning permission would be made to the Peak park joint planning board in the first instance.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend accept from me that my motive in asking the Question was to try to ensure that people in the Peak park have

adequate employment without this at the same time involving the destruction of the surpassing beauty of this area? Will he further accept from me that the scars being left within the park are horrific and far more massive than the average person understands? Will he ensure that there are clauses in any of these contracts to ensure that the ground is set right after the profits and the materials have been taken out? This is absolutely necessary as, for instance, the great area on the periphery, extending for miles between Buxton and Bakewell, looks like the mountains of the moon, frankly—and they are almost as big.

Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with those considerations. My hon. Friend's opening comments very properly showed the balance which Ministers and planning boards must hold. In this respect I am sure that my hon. Friend will be as delighted as the Government are with the new agreement reached between the board and Dresser Minerals, under which that company has entered into a full bond guaranteeing absolute restoration of the 10 acres to be mined. We regard that development, upon which we have congratulated the planning board, as a very significant step in the direction in which we and my hon. Friend wish to go.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister reject the mercantilism and xenophobia of the Question by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), in which he refers to foreign companies only? Will he assert that the Government are in favour of both inward and outward investment and that considerations will be equally applied to both foreign and domestic companies?

Mr. Howell: We apply the planning laws impartially between all applicants.

Mr. Budgen: That is right.

Water Charges

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about future charging for water supplies.

Mr. Denis Howell: The basis upon which water charges are made is contained in the Water Act 1973, and I have no statement to make upon that matter at the present time.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister of State aware of the deep concern felt by many local authorities, including Berkshire county council, that the implementation of section 30 of the Water Act may cause a steep rise in domestic water charges? Without metering, does not the Minister agree that it is impossible to introduce a charge which is not arbitrary? In those circumstances, what proposal has he either to amend section 30 or to ensure that domestic charges do not rise at a time of pay restraint?

Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House and the country to the likely effects of section 30, if that section continues to be unamended. The effect would be to transfer some of the weight of charging to the domestic consumer from industry as a whole, which would have rather serious repercussions. However, I am sure that individual metering of domestic water supplies in households is not the way to deal with that problem. It would be an extremely expensive operation and it would be an impost upon large families and the poorest families who are least able to bear that charge.

Mr. John Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many water authorities are discussing exactly such matters as he has mentioned—metering, making charges for connections, and so on? Will he ensure that they stop making this kind of investigation and these studies and use the money thus saved possibly to devise a form of lavatory that uses less water, which would give them more saving and is technically feasible?

Mr. Howell: I shall not comment upon my hon. Friend's last proposal—unless this new method of flushing which he has mentioned is intended to flush out the monstrous suggestion that we should have water metering. I assure my hon. Friend that the present Government have no intention of embracing any such policy.

Home Ownership

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to bring forward in order to increase home ownership.

Mr. Shore: From 1st December prospective first-time buyers can begin to qualify for benefits under the"home

loan" scheme. I recently announced a decision to keep the value of the option mortgage subsidy at the same level as basic rate tax relief—33 per cent. The Housing Bill will include provisions on local authority mortgage rates and guarantees. I hope to expand the support lending scheme with the building societies. I shall continue to work with the societies to create a stable housing market.

Mr. Costain: Is not the Secretary of State rather ashamed of that complacent reply, having regard to all that he has done to stop house purchases and all that he has done in regard to rent restrictions to stop houses being let? Does he not have some positive ideas to get better housing in this country?

Mr. Shore: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned with the increase in home ownership, which I understand he is, he will have noticed that home ownership has increased about 600,000 in the past four years. He will have noticed, further, that we have introduced a scheme to make it possible for the first time for many people who are not particularly well off to surmount the first major hurdle of accumulating a sufficient deposit in order to begin to become home buyers. That is the purpose of the new home loan scheme which we have just launched and which I believe many people will want to take up.

Mr. Litterick: Does not the Secretary of State agree, however, that the combination of a 12 per cent. minimum lending rate with a 5 per cent. maximum limit on wage increases is almost a classic formula for preventing young people from buying houses and, therefore, for ensuring that tens of thousands of building workers remain unemployed?

Mr. Shore: The 12 per cent. mortgage rate is a very unwelcome development. Nevertheless, it is a fact that the number of people buying their homes has increased. Indeed, the number has been running at a record level this year, and that follows 1977, which was an all-time record year.

Mr. Heseltine: Is not the Secretary of State aware that in each year of the present Government there have been 40,000 fewer new homes than in the four years of the previous Conservative Government? Is not he further aware that


the single most significant step that any Government could take to increase the prospect of home ownership is to give a statutory right to council tenants to buy their own homes and, therefore, to enable those people who are at present council tenants to share in the massive personal benefit that has accrued to those who have bought their own homes in a property owning democracy?

Mr. Shore: All that the hon. Member is saying is extremely obvious. He is saying that if I am prepared to contemplate a massive reduction in the necessary supply of rented accommodation, I can have an equivalent increase in owner-occupation. I do not believe that that is the right way to proceed. It is in the interests of our people that we should make available an increased supply of homes for owner-occupation and not deplete a necessary local authority rented sector.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, I raised the issue of the future control of new town assets. It appeared that because of the length of the Ministerial reply you

determined that only one supplementary question would be taken. As many hon. Members are extremely concerned about this very important issue, is it reasonable that because a Minister makes a reply which is viewed as being rather long those hon. Members should be deprived of the opportunity that would normally have been made available to them of questioning the Minister on a subject of this importance? I do not normally intervene in such matters but, with respect, I think that the circumstances to which I have referred were a little unfair to hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we had already spent six minutes on one Question about new towns and that his Question on the new towns took another three minutes out of our full total for Question time. It is a matter of being fair not only to hon. Members who are still on their feet but to other hon. Members who have taken the trouble to put Questions on the Order Paper and are hoping that they will be called. If the day comes when the hon. Gentleman has the honour to sit in this Chair, I can assure him that he will find that at every Question Time people are disappointed by not being called.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (BRUSSELS MEETING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Brussels which I attended with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 4th and 5th December. I apologise for the fact that it is a little long.
The main topic of discussion was the European monetary system and matters related to it. The Council agreed that a European monetary system should be established on 1st January 1979. The five Community countries at present in the snake indicated that they would participate in all aspects of the system, and France decided to join them. At the conclusion of the discussions, the Prime Ministers of Italy and Ireland said that they would need more time for consultations before reaching a conclusion on their participation in the exchange rate mechanism.
I explained to the Council that I would not be recommending to the Cabinet that the United Kingdom should participate in the exchange rate mechanism when it begins to function. I informed the other Heads of Government that we intend to work for a continuation of the exchange rate stability which sterling has enjoyed for nearly two years. I am arranging for the relevant document which was agreed to be published as a White Paper.
It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be free to join the exchange rate mechanism at a later date if we wish, or, of course, to remain outside it. We shall, of course, join in the development of the ECU and of the European monetary fund. All Community currencies will be included in the ECU. We are free to choose whether or not we wish to deposit 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves with the European monetary cooperation fund against issue to us of a corresponding value of ECUs. That is a matter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider shortly with the Bank of England. In taking a decision, we shall take into account the possibility that intervention in Community currencies

could be helpful to us in maintaining the stability of sterling.
We shall participate in the enlarged Community credit which is linked to the establishment of the EMS. This will be without reservation in the increase in medium-term credit. As regards the short-term monetary support, which is more closely linked to day-to-day rate intervention, we have agreed not to call on the credit increase which is now being made, and our partners have agreed not to call on us. There is also provision for reciprocal consultation about important decisions concerning exchange rate policy between countries inside and outside the exchange rate mechanism.
At the previous Council meeting, in Bremen, I called for studies in the context of EMS about measures to strengthen the economies of the less prosperous member countries. This part of our work was less thoroughly prepared than the work on the system itself. The proposals which eventually emerged provided for additional loan facilities of up to 1,000 million European units of account a year over five years for less prosperous countries participating in the exchange rate mechanism, with a 3 per cent. interest rate subsidy. There was a limitation on these loans, that they should not be used for projects which might create distortion of competition within other member countries. Member countries not participating in the exchange rate mechanism will not contribute to the financing of this scheme.
I stressed the importance of Community policies, taken as a whole, contributing to convergence in the economic performance of members of the Community. It was doubts about the value of the proposals so far made that contributed to the unwillingness of Italy and Ireland to commit themselves. The Commission was invited to look into this whole question and report back to the next European Council.
As for the common agricultural policy, the Commission made a report recommending a rigorous price policy as a way of tackling the problem of surpluses, with a freeze on common prices for 197–0. The President of the Commission announced that the Commission would make its detailed proposals for next year's


prices on this basis. The Council agreed to return to this problem and to establish the necessary guidelines at its meeting in March. There was a short discussion about fisheries, and the Commission was asked to make further efforts towards finding a satisfactory settlement.
Among other topics, I should report briefly on two. The first was the agreement to ask a committee of three, drawn from France, the Netherlands and Britain, to look at the way in which the Community works and make practical suggestions for improvements, with a view particularly to the prospective enlargement to 12. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) has been good enough to accept an invitation to serve, together with M. Barend Biesheuvel of the Netherlands and M. Robert Marjolin of France.
Secondly, Foreign Ministers discussed the emoluments which should be received by directly elected Members of the European Assembly. They agreed that the emoluments should be based on those of Members of national Parliaments and be subject to national taxation. There will be consultation with the Assembly by the President of the Council of Ministers.
We were greatly helped throughout this long and arduous meeting by the skilful chairmanship of Chancellor Schmidt. We can be satisfied that our country played a constructive part in the months of discussion that led to the construction of the European monetary scheme. The initial decision has now been taken and it is for each country to decide whether the proposals now on offer are commensurate with the greater risks involved of going into the exchange rate mechanism.
The British Government hope that the greater stability which the dollar has enjoyed in recent weeks will continue and will help the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS when it begins to operate. We for our part look forward to participating in further work that remains to be done on both the internal aspects of the system and in its wider international implications.
The broad conclusion that I offer to the House is that well-constructed and effective international monetary arrangements can assist those who take part in

them in certain circumstances but they can be no more than additional supports, and that in the end it will be the success of our own efforts in restraining inflation, keeping down prices, maintaining the stability of sterling and remaining competitive that will ensure the long-term well-being of our people.

Mrs. Thatcher: This is a sad day for Europe, in that the nine member countries have been unable to agree on a major new initiative which will affect us all.
There are three points that I want to put to the Prime Minister. First, is it not also a sad reflection on the performance of this Government that after four and a half years the Prime Minister is content to have Britain openly classified among the poorest and least influential members in the Community, and that along with them we must ask for assistance if we are even to contemplate joining the scheme?
Secondly, what really prevented the Prime Minister from joining the scheme? Was it economic weakness and lack of competitiveness, or are the reasons political, in that, whatever his own view, his party clearly would never have allowed him to join the system?
Thirdly, has not the Prime Minister come back from Brussels with the worst of all worlds—no reduction in the budget contribution, about which he himself has been complaining but which he himself negotiated and commended to the country in 1975; no reform of the common fisheries policy; no reform of the common agricultural policy; and no membership of the EMS?
Just what did the Prime Minister achieve for Britain in Brussels?

The Prime Minister: I think that basically there was no particular achievement on anyone's part. What happened was that national considerations of all the nine members prevailed over the attempt to bring about an international agreement. Britain was one of those that put its national interests in the forefront. On occasion that is necessary. But, as I think is well known in the House, there are many occasions on which international agreements, if we can secure them, are for the benefit of not only our country but other countries. On every occasion


we must judge. The plain truth is that just as other countries judge their national interests, so we judged ours.
In her usual way, the right hon. Lady asked"Is not it a sad reflection on the performance of this Government?"If we are to improve our national position it would be as well if we all looked at our performance over the past 40 or 50 years. I have never been hesitant in saying that this country's performance has slid steadily backwards since at least the end of the First World War. I do not think that it helps to try to compress our performance into a period of three or four years, except for party reasons. I understand that the right hon. Lady must do that to satisfy those on the Benches behind her. What is important is that this country should become more competitive and should keep its rate of inflation down. I should like a little help from the Opposition now and again in doing those things.
The right hon. Lady also asked what had kept us out. I suppose that basically it was that we felt that the system as it was devised was too close to the original snake. It gradually acquired more characteristics of the snake as the negotiations went on. The right hon. Lady, who of course likes to draw a veil over her own experience in this matter, might contemplate, in the quietness of this evening, that she herself was part of a Government that went into a similar system and emerged very bedraggled after six weeks. We should at least try to learn from our history, even if the right hon. Lady prefers to forget it.
There are differences about this system which in my view make it more likely to succeed. There is the proposal to intervene when the rates become divergent —up to 75 per cent. of their normal rate —which I think will help, together with the establishment of the 25 billion ECU credit fund. That gives it a better chance than the original snake.
But I think that basically the final decision not to join was made simply for this reason: when the right hon. Lady's Government negotiated the matter six or seven years ago, they were informed, I am certain in good faith, and they accepted in good faith—I do not blame them for accepting the information; they just happened to be wrong, all of them—that the economies of the

Community countries would converge before the transitional period came to an end. That has not happened.
The right hon. Lady may blame me for that. I have no doubt that she will. Everybody can judge. The plain truth is that the economies have failed to converge. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] I remind those who cheer that their convergence required not only action on our part but promises by the other members of the Community that they would take action to achieve it. Both those things have been missing, and therefore we decided that at this stage it would be imprudent to join the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. David Steel: Does the Prime Minister agree that the apparent division of the Community into two blocks, one consisting of the stronger economies and one of the weaker, with ourselves in the second category, is itself most unfortunate, to say the least?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his description of the British role over these months as constructive does not appear to be shared by our Community partners?
I should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about the committee that is being set up, on which his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) will serve. What will that do that the Tindemans report did not, and what happened to the Tindemans report?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his first point. After all, up to now five members of the Community have been in the snake. Now there will be six, in the new system. I have heard no accusation of two blocks before, and there will not be two blocks now. At least, if they do exist now, they existed before.
I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman on the question of our contribution. I do not think that he will find any informed commentator—he will certainly find no Head of Government—who shares his views about the attitude that we have adopted or the work that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done on the system—work that has been highly praised by all


those who have been associated with the negotiations over the past few months.
Indeed, the President of France said yesterday that he thought that we had been extremely constructive in our approach and in what we had tried to do. I prefer to rest on that than on the jeers of an Opposition determined to try to do everything to destroy the Government's credibility.

Mr. Jay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his firm defence of British interests will command widespread support throughout the country, particularly at a time when the Conservative Party seems ready to champion the interests of any country but its own?

The Prime Minister: I am bound to say that when I listened yesterday to the Prime Ministers of France, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and Belgium—to name but a few—I detected no intention by any of them to depart from their national interests. I thought that I was modestly joining that bandwagon when I defended British interests on this occasion.
It is remarkable that the Opposition's spokesman on foreign affairs—of course, I expect it from the right hon. Lady—should regard it as a disgrace when we defend our national interests.

Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware that over a large majority of the public of this country the decision not to join the currency system will be received with relief and satisfaction? Is he further aware that the decision of himself and of the Cabinet will be taken as an earnest of the sincerity of their undertaking to maintain the control of Parliament over the essential economic affairs of this country?

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is voting Labour again, I think.

The Prime Minister: The control by Parliament of this country's economic and financial affairs must always be absolute, except to the extent that we ourselves decide formally to surrender a part of it, as we did, for example, when we entered the International Monetary Fund. I would not hesitate to recommend to the House a departure from our national sovereignty for an international monetary system if I thought that it would increase

growth, reduce unemployment and make for better trading relations between the countries of the world as a whole or a part of them. But that must be a deliberate and conscious decision by this country and its people.

Mr. Roper: Taking into account what he has said, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will assure the House that the British Government will continue to play a full part in developing policy within the Community to ensure economic convergence between its members?

The Prime Minister: That is important, but it is also important that we should endeavour to have a rate of inflation, to take just one indicator, that is as good as those of our major competitors and partners in Europe. I regret that we do not look as though we shall move far in that direction during the next 12 months. I wish that we were likely to. We shall have to take other measures to achieve that, over a period of two or three years, in order to get where the Germans are now.
As for working out policies that will ensure the convergence of our economies, that, of course, is sensible. We have always said, in relation to the Third world, that we cannot have persistent islands of prosperity if we have a world of poverty. Likewise, we must have a better balance in the economies of the countries of Europe. The wealthy countries can contribute to this, but the main effort must be ours. That is why the Government are taking the steps that they are taking today, and we shall persist in them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I accept the many sound reasons that the Prime Minister has advanced for the United Kingdom not joining the EMS, but did not he find it humiliating to be the leader of a country that is so weak economically and so third-rate that he was unable to join other small prosperous countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, let alone the big boys, such as Germany and France?

The Prime Minister: I do not welcome the fact that our national income is below that of the average in the Community, but I do not think that we should use words such as"humiliation"to describe it. What it should do is spur us on to a bigger effort, nationally


achieved, to improve our performance. Anything that indicates how far we have to go and how far we have slid down is to my mind a very salutary reminder to all our people.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Government supporters are not surprised that he failed to get the conditions that he so rightly laid down for British membership? Is he aware, further, that we congratulate him on having stood up firmly for the needs of the British economy? Does he realise that the conditions never will be met for achieving monetary stability in Europe through fixed exchange rates? Therefore, will he please abandon this will o' the wisp and concentrate on building up Britain's needs and Britain's economy?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I hope it is not true that the conditions never will he met in which we can have more exchange rate stability in Europe. I cannot depart from my strongly held view that it will be in all our interests if the conditions are met. That demands a big effort by us. It also demands assistance from the other countries towards the general convergence of the economies. I also hope that the European monetary system, although we have not entered the exchange rate mechanism part of it, will he a precursor to another attempt to get back to more exchange rate stability on an even broader basis with the dollar and perhaps with other currencies.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are disappointed at such an incomplete result of the EMS talks? Will he assure the House that in the months to come he will bear in mind the problems of business men dealing in wildly fluctuating currencies and try to ensure that the three wise men, of whom his right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is one, consider not only the position in Europe but the position of Europe in the rest of the world and perhaps—especially in the Prime Minister's case—our position isolated now from our European partners?

The Prime Minister: I do not understand the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question about our being isolated. It is a remarkable degree of iso-

lation when my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is invited to be one of the three who are asked to consider how European procedures should develop. That is a strange form of isolation. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that yesterday's result was a more incomplete one than was expected. I regret that. I wish that it had been more positive in some ways, because this is a set-back for a very bold initiative by Chancellor Schmidt, who was trying to raise the general standards throughout Europe. He has not succeeded so far, but I believe that another attempt should be made in due course. If the conditions are different, perhaps it will be more helpful to those who are not able to join the present system, and will enable them to do so.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's strategy and tactics, in very difficult economic circumstances, have been quite correct and that, although he has now made a tactical advance, it is imperative to resist the dogmatic demands of extremists on both sides of the EMS in order to retain the flexibility that is necessary for the future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have managed to secure the necessary flexibility both to participate in some of the benefits—through credits—of the European monetary scheme while retaining flexibility on our own exchange rate, but I do not want that to be construed as an easy option to alter our present exchange rate policy, because that is not the purpose of the decision.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us who applaud his standing up for our national interests do not regard the mechanisms of the EEC as internationalist in the true sense of the word and that it is the tact that it is supranational and wishes to become a large super Power that we distrust? In that respect, can my right hon. Friend outline to the House some of the obligations that would have been placed on Her Majesty's Government in respect of economic or financial policy had we acceded to the scheme for which he would have been accountable to the EEC authorities and for which, from now on, he will he accountable only to this House?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's attitude, which has been consistent all the way through, and his distrust of these instruments. But we are members of the European Economic Community. I wish, for example, that it would show a greater outward-looking vision through its agricultural policy, which is one of the most reactionary that I have seen. It is incredible that at the same time as discussions were going on yesterday about the way in which Ireland could be assisted to raise her standard—and not very large amounts were involved—we were presented with a report that showed that more than 8 billion units of account was to be devoted to agricultural support, surpluses and stocking during the next year. I agree with some of my hon. Friend's criticisms. However, I get off the train a few stations before he does on this matter.
As for the obligations that we do not now undertake, perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to study the White Paper, which I hope will be published in the next day or so. He will then see in detail what they are.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not a sobering thought that those right hon. and hon. Members who are most delighted by today's news are the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Will the Prime Minister say quite clearly why there were good reasons for France to join, with an equally vulnerable currency, and why there were good reasons for us to stay out?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish to comment on France's decision to join. That is a matter for the President of France to decide. History will reveal whether the scheme is successful.

Mr. George Gardiner: May I ask the Prime Minister about the salaries of Members of the European Assembly, in which I should tell him that I have no personal interest whatever? How can he justify an arrangement by which the elected representative of the British people are to be counted among the paupers of the European Assembly, being paid in many cases less than the secretaries serving them? Is this an accurate reflection of the depth to which we have sunk, in economic terms, compared with our European partners?

The Prime Minister: I sympathise with the hon. Member in his desire to find something to criticise the Government about, but this was a unanimous decision by the Council of Ministers in which all the Heads of Government decided that the most satisfactory way of settling this was that all members should receive the salaries that were applicable to Members in their own Parliaments. There was no reference to humiliation, poverty, disgrace or any of the other adjectives that come so easily to the hon. Member's lips.

Mr. Torney: I congratulate the Prime Minister on rejecting the EMS, despite the noises from the Conservative Benches to the contrary. Will he tell the House whether we can rest assured that there will be no sell-out of the British fishing industry now that EMS is well out of the way for the time being?

The Prime Minister: There would never be a sell-out of the British fishing industry. There were expressions of concern yesterday about the inability of the negotiations to proceed further because of international complications. There is a third group of countries outside the EEC which is waiting for treaties to be signed and agreements to be made. This cannot be done until we achieve a settlement on the British fishing industry dispute. As my hon. Friend knows, a meeting has been arranged between Commissioner Gundelach and British Ministers tomorrow. I hope that some progress will be made then.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister tell us how it serves the British national interest to set back the greater financial unity of Europe? Are we not involved in that? Looking to the future, the Prime Minister has fairly stated that he hopes at some stage to join such a currency arrangement. Will he tell us how he expects to get better arrangements with our European partners from the outside than he could have got from the inside?

The Prime Minister: It is no use mouthing slogans about the greater financial unity of Europe unless the system that is proposed meets the needs of all those who are invited to join it. That is where the previous Conservative Government went wrong last time. I very much hope that this scheme will prove effective and durable. However, we must judge that as we see it develop and unroll.
As for being outside, I think that the hon. Member misunderstands the position. The scheme comes under the overall supervision of the Finance Ministers. Therefore, we are part of the scheme, to the extent that my right hon. Friend will be there joining in a number of these discussions, concerning, for example, the long-term development and matters such as credit, relations with the dollar, and the differences in the exchange rates. He will not be concerned with the day-to-day maintenance of sterling against the Community currencies. Therefore, in terms of the development of the system and the protection of sterling and European currencies, my right hon. Friend will be there playing his full part.

Mr. Marten: Will the Prime Minister tell the House, after his meeting in Brussels, whether there are any realistic chances of any radical reform—and I mean reform, not just price tinkering—of the common agricultural policy? If there is no chance of such reform, what does he propose to do?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter of semantics. I regard radical reform"as involving the destruction of surpluses, or at least the ending of the accumulation of surpluses. A price freeze, if the Commission put that forward, would contribute to that end. If we want changes in the policy it is important for us to make clear that the objectives of the policy are not under attack by us. The objectives are those that were introduced by Tom Williams into British agriculture 30 years ago, namely, a fair return for the producer and reasonable prices for the consumer. It is the failure to achieve these ends that we attack, not the objectives themselves.

Mr. George Grant: My right hon. Friend has stressed the inadequacy and the unfairness of the CAP at the meeting, but has he stressed the importance of energy policy, instead of the nationalistic further movement towards a common approach that exists today?

The Prime Minister: There are serious discussions going on to try to achieve a common energy policy and certainly we wish to make our contribution to such a policy. This is especially so in conservation and use of resources. However, we did not discuss that yesterday in the context of the EMS.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that despite today's strong statement and his refusal at this time to sell out on EMS, there are those of us who believe that in the interests of the working class this can be regarded as only a marginal, temporary victory? Is he further aware that he spoilt his statement by wanting to balance the books on behalf of the pro-Marketeers by accepting ECU, possibly laying down deposits and engaging a pro-Market banker to discuss the enlargement of the Common Market, presumably on our behalf as well?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that, as so often happens, I do not agree with my hon. Friend on these matters. The judgment of the interests of the working classes should be based on increasing their prosperity, welfare and prospects for jobs, and ensuring that they can live decently. It is with those ends in mind that these matters must be judged. It is against that that I believe that it is worth while to get long-term stability in the monetary arrangements of those countries that have been so sadly destroyed since the Bretton Woods system broke up.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a strong feeling in the European Parliament that considerably more money should be put into the European regional fund? This would enable help to be given to those areas in special need, at the same time as monetary co-operation is being sought by the whole Community. The Prime Minister has not said anything about this. Was it not discussed at the European Council meeting? If it was, would he support the views of the European Parliament?

The Prime Minister: There were proposals to ensure funds being made available to strengthen the regions, but it was made clear on behalf of those who contribute more than they receive that they were not willing to increase the budget in that way. That was an important influence on the desire of Italy and Ireland for further consultations. We would be glad to see increases in the regional fund, but, in view of the burden being borne by Germany and by others, it would be far better to restructure existing funds away from CAP support and into regiona assistance of this sort than try to increase the budget beyond the point that some countries are willing to bear.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call four more hon. Members from each side.

Mr. Watkinson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, under the system that has been agreed, there is a symmetry of burden on surplus countries and deficit countries? Will he continue to press for reform of the CAP? The problem of this policy will become even greater with the enlargement of the Common Market. Will he note that it is not simply a question of the end price system producing surpluses; there is large-scale structural capacity in Europe to produce food, which needs some form of national attention?

The Prime Minister: I promise that we shall persist with our attempts to get changes in the CAP. I agree that the problem will become greater with enlargement. That is why I said yesterday that if there are no reforms the CAP will break down under its own weight one day. It is in the interests of those who are benefiting from the system today, as well as in our interests, to approach this matter rationally.

Mr. Higgins: Does the Prime Minister recall a statement that he made some time ago about the objectives of the Government on North Sea oil? Is it not a fact that had he succeeded in those objectives we would have been sufficiently strong economically to join the EMS? What does he propose to do about this? Because of North Sea oil we are in a totally different situation from that in which we were five or six years ago.

The Prime Minister: I do not recall what I said about it, but I am sure that it was well judged and complete, and that it carried the assent of the whole House. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we want to make certain that the resources of the North Sea should not be spent on current consumption. So far, we have done so. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must try to make better arrangements about this. But the Opposition have not proposed policies that are better than those of the Government for achieving this. I am very ready to be spurred on by them, but they will have to produce something better than they have done so far.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be welcome in so far as it stops the drift towards economic and monetary union and therefore supports Labour Party policy? Does he also accept that for a number of years he and others have been expressing determination to reform the CAP, but so far this has not been done? Thirdly, does he accept that we need to go further than simply withholding from EMS; we need to be prepared to make a unilateral declaration that if there is not more significant and radical reform, we shall be prepared to take unilateral action and withdraw from the EEC?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of tactics I would not commend what my hon. Friend says unless he is immediately willing to do so. I can imagine nothing more likely to stop rational discussion until that decision were made effective. I suggest that if he is going to do it one day when he rejoins us he had better keep quiet about it until the day that he decides to do it. I agree that we have not achieved what we would like on this matter. The walls of Jericho did not fall down the first time the Israelites marched round them—I yield to any Biblical scholar on this—but they fell down after a time, as I believe these walls will.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is not so much the judgment of the President of France about his performance in Brussels that matters but what is thought of the Prime Minister's performance in this House and the country? Will he tell us what he really thinks of EMS? Does he think that it was a proposal to help the more prosperous countries in the EEC, or a proposal that might have helped us and less prosperous nations to learn to live within our incomes?

The Prime Minister: It is difficult to sum up in a sentence. I think that the origin of the EMS lies in the disillusionment that was felt, in my view wrongly, last spring about the prospects for the American dollar and the American economy. That was the origin of it; nothing more high-flown than that. Whether it would yield benefits to our economy is a matter of judgment. It is the Government's judgment that at the moment it would not yield such benefits,


and would place obligations on us that might result in unnecessary deflation and unemployment, as long as our currency was linked with other currencies that might themselves be affected by what happened to a third currency, namely, the dollar. If one of the strong currencies of Europe becomes a currency of refuge for the dollar, that makes it more difficult for others in this system. I am not ready at this time to take that risk.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why should my right hon. Friend be criticised for refusing to increase unemployment in this country in order to strengthen the franc? What more do we have to do to prove our loyalty to the European idea when we have paid in twice as much as we have taken out since we entered the Community and we have had a consistent balance of payments deficit, so that other members of the Nine have benefited at our expense?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone with whom I discussed these matters over 30 long, wearisome hours yesterday was querying our loyalty or disloyalty. There were differences of judgment about the consequences of this scheme, and only time will reveal them. For myself, I very much hope that the scheme will succeed. I believe that it will be of benefit to the countries taking part if it does succeed, and could be the precursor to other and wider schemes. Whether it is or not, we shall have to wait and see, but there is no reason why we should hope for failure. Certainly, I do not.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Should not Britain's contribution to the stability of currencies be made through sterling and the adoption of wise disciplines in our economy? Why is it thought necessary or advantageous, or particularly dignified, that those disciplines should be imposed on us from outside?

The Prime Minister: I am inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Our future lies in our own hands. But it might be better if he were to address his question to the leader of his own party.

Mr. MacFarquhar: In view of the good wishes that my right hon. Friend has given for the success of EMS, will he assure the House that if that success is borne out

and we then decide to try to join, our late entry will not harm us in the way that our late entry to the CAP did?

The Prime Minister: I am not quite sure what is understood by the word"entry ". The European monetary scheme is a scheme that will be supervised. The oversight will be joined by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor, together with the other eight members. We are there to influence its direction and its shape. What we are not joining is the exchange rate intervention system, which would place certain obligations upon us. We shall be able to shape the future development of the scheme in a way that would not be possible were we totally outside the Community.

Sir Anthony Meyer: As the right hon. Gentleman loses no opportunity to tell us of the successes of his Government in overcoming this country's economic problems, will he say what further successes he requires before the economy is strong enough to accept the disciplines that this system entails?

The Prime Minister: At this moment it is not a question of strength or weakness in relation to the mechanism it is a question whether the mechanism is well devised to stand the strains placed upon it. That is a matter of judgment. Some take one view and others another. We must allow the scheme to run for a little while to see who is right.

BILL PRESENTED

FILMS

Mr. Hugh Jenkins presented a Bill to amend section 6 of the Films Act 1960; And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time; upon Friday 19th January 1979 and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), shall apply to the Motion relating to the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978 with the substitution of half-past Two o'clock or four and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph (1)(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause No. 1

ADMINISTRATION OF SCHEME

(1) For the purposes of administering the scheme, the Secretary of State shall call for tenders, and any person who wishes to contract for the administration of the scheme (including the Registrar) may submit a tender.
(2) The Secretary of State shall accept the tender which in his opinion gives the best value for money, provided that he shall lay before Parliament a schedule showing the sums of money included in each tender which he receives '.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 20, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, after ' Registrar ' add
' and the responsibility for administering the public lending right shall be exercised through the British Library and through the Bibliographical Services Division's British National Bibliography and computer facilities known as MARC, which already records each new published book as it is deposited in the British Library '.
Government amendment No. 63.

Amendment No. 64, in the schedule, page 7, line 40, after ' fit ', insert:
' but not more than 10 in total '.

Government amendments Nos. 65 to 68.

Mr. Ridley: My first word is to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that amendment No. 66 is out of order because it makes no sense. It suggests that after the first"the"in paragraph 7(4) of the schedule, the words
 Secretary of State and the 
should be inserted. If that amendment were made, the schedule would read:
The Secretary of State and the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service ".
Clearly, the Government have got the wrong"the ". They should have said the

second"the"instead of the first"the I hope that such sloppy draftsmanship will not occur again.
The Government amendments merely tidy up the part of the schedule which makes clear that responsibility for paying the pensions of the staff will rest with the Registrar, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The House will not wish to dwell on them except to comment that it ought to be possible for the Government to get their drafting right if they wish to make amendments.
I want to make a plea to the Government that the administration of the public lending right scheme should be handled properly. I repeat a suggestion that I made in Committee which did not receive a proper answer. I believe that we aught to put the administration of the scheme out to tender.
The skills of those working in the computer industry and the developing techniques are such that it is becoming a highly skilled area, and I am sure that many companies have developed the expertise to do this sort of work on a wide scale. Hitherto, the Civil Service has always sought to carry out all administration of such technical matters—there is no policy involved, it is a technical problem. I am convinced that we could find in the administration of the Civil Service a much wider application of the principle that I propose.
My suggestion is that the Secretary of State should be required by law to put out to tender the operation of the scheme. Any company that wished to do so could submit a tender which would be open to inspection by the House so that hon. Members could ascertain that the Government had chosen the lowest tender. The Government have never seen fit to employ that fairly obvious procedure.
We all remember the classic case when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) drew attention to the cost of planting the lime trees in New Palace Yard. He discovered that the cost of the Civil Service supplying and planting the trees was between £4,000 and £5,000 and he submitted a tender for £280. That was an example of the enormous savings that can be made by going out to tender. No ready answer was given by the Department responsible as to why it could not


accept my hon. and learned Friend's tender. It started to cast aspersions on the quality of his lime trees as though there were some difference between public and private lime trees. All sorts of ridiculous criticisms were levelled at him.
There are many more important matters than the planting of lime trees, including the administration of pensions and benefits, that could be put out to tender. I am referring not to the determination of policy but to the physical task of paying pensions and drafts to the recipients of benefits.
The public lending right administration will be a simple task and there is no doubt that we could put it out to tender. In a way, it is our best opportunity for experimenting in this way because there is no question of an existing scheme of administration having to be replaced. If we had a staff of 35 or 40 and a new quango in full flood administering the scheme, there would be strong protests and lobbies to prevent any change. But that is not the case. There is no such lobby. We have a clean sheet and could put the scheme out to tender as a demonstration of what could be done.
In amendment No. 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggests that the administration should be done through the British Library and the existing computer system known as MARC. His amendment does not go as far as the new clause, but that may be the right answer. The Government suggest that it should be done by the Registrar, and that may be the right answer. What is the harm in putting it to the test? Why do we not get tenders to see which is the cheapest? Let us be open about it. The Government claim that they believe in open government. Let them lay the tenders on the table so that we can see which is the cheapest.
The cost of administering the scheme will be £600,000 a year. I accept that out of that money must come the salaries of the Registrar and his secretary and their office expenses and the cost of the work carried out in the libraries which must be reimbursed to library authorities. However, there will still be several hundred thousand pounds a year which could be the subject of competitive bids. Even if we saved only £10, it would be a worthwhile saving as an example of what could be done elsewhere. My impression is

that we would save very much more than that. We might save as much as half the proposed cost.
There is always someone in the world who has the up-to-date skills and knowledge to do the best job in the cheapest way, and he should be given the opportunity to tender to show that he can do that.

Mr. Roger Moate: Might not the arrangement suggested by my hon. Friend be of benefit not only to taxpayers but to authors, who would stand to gain most from the saving in expenses which would result from competitive tendering?

Mr. Ridley: That is right. It must be grievious to authors who thought that there would be £2 million available to them to find that 30 per cent. of that is to be swallowed up in administrative costs. Every penny that we can save in the cost of administration will increase the authors' share.
I put it more strongly than that. We have been woefully slow in adopting proper techniques for ensuring value for money in public expenditure. There are many tasks where we cannot get comparisons with the private sector or which could not be put out to private firms to perform, but where they can be put out to firms they should be, if only to get a check price
I remember questioning representatives of the Property Services Agency at a meeting of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee about their policy for checking the cost of the Agency's work on Government buildings —repairs, maintenance, redecoration, provision of tables, chairs and carpets and all the work of maintaining the fabric of the buildings in which the bureaucrats live. The PSA representatives continually stalled when they were asked why they had never had a check price from the private sector. They had no answer. They used words such as"not convenient"and"inappropriate ".
I am certain that we should go through the whole public sector to see which parts of its activities are suitable for putting out to tender. The whole principle of tendering is that it is a way of achieving value for money and it leads to a constant check on whether there is efficiency in the


public administration. Unless we are prepared to test our public administrative procedures wherever we can, we shall find that the growth of the bureaucracy takes place unhindered and unchecked.
The enormous burden of public administration which has grown upon the shoulders of the taxpayers is, I agree, determined to a large extent by policies pursued as a result of decisions of the House, but a large amount of that burden is represented by purely administrative costs. The attention of the House should be directed towards improving the standard of efficiency where necessary and checking efficiency by obtaining check prices from the private sector.
I can think of no better example than this unborn quango. It is conceived but unborn. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) is in the Chamber keeping a watchful eye on the development of this foetus, which I hope will suffer abortion now that birth control is no longer possible.
We are putting into effect another quango. Let us at least try to make sure that there are disciplines upon it. There can be no more salutary discipline than that proposed in the new clause. I grant the Minister that my drafting may be capable of improvement, but, as I pointed out earlier, if there are drafting deficiencies the Minister is in the same boat as I am because his amendment is curiously drafted. I am sure that he will not hold any drafting deficiency against me.
I hope that, contrary to the Minister's attitude in Committee, he will accept the principle behind the new clause and will arrange for outside firms to be allowed the opportunity to put forward schemes of administration that could be tested and priced to see which is the cheapest and most effective. The House should then be informed of the results of that competition.
4.30 p.m.
As I said in Committee, if the Government are not prepared to do that, I most certainly am. When the scheme is published and laid before the House, I shall write to the various software houses and computer companies and seek tenders. I shall then see whether I can get a

cheaper price than the Government, just as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire did in the case of the lime trees over the car park. I shall hold the Minister to account for what he puts in towards the cost of this scheme when we discuss the Estimates. No discipline is as good as the discipline of having to obtain a job in full and fair competition. There is no reason why we should not do that in this case.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend the Minister of State would be ill-advised to accept the clause which has been so beguilingly proposed by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). His proposition rests on a misunderstanding of the true position.
The technical investigation group made the recommendations which are the technical basis of the Bill. I was responsible in that direction during the accouchement period of the Bill. Neither I nor the group was ever reluctant to acquire the wealth of information that is available from private organisations on the subject. I commissioned a £28,000 study from a firm called Logica Limited, an excellent private organisation, which made an invaluable contribution to the investigation. Without that contribution the proposals that form the basis of the group's unanimous recommendations could not have been made.
Two stages will be involved. There is the first, which begins at the 72 libraries that will be the basis of the whole scheme. The second stage will take place under the aegis of the Registrar.
At the libraries, books will be counted as they are returned. It was realised that if the process were carried out when books were taken out it would cause delays at the libraries. Under these proposals the operator in the library can stack the returned books until it is convenient for him to process them.
The process is carried out by means of a light pen which reads a bar code which transmits information on to a magnetic tape. The tapes are subsequently forwarded once or twice a week to the Registrar's office. At that point the Regisstrar will pass the tapes on to a computer organisation.
The Registrar could if he wished use the MARC computer, which is already owned by the British Library. Alternatively, he might decide to use a private computer organisation, sending the tapes perhaps to my constituency for ICL, which has its headquarters there, to do the computer processing.
The small computers, which are located at 72 points, will do the initial recording work. I found during my examination of the scheme that the libraries were most enthusiastic. They discovered points about their pattern of lending which showed them that they could save considerable sums of money as a result of the knowledge provided by the scheme. The scheme worked well and benificently, and worked to the advantage of the authors and the libraries.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will agree that, just as I and the civil servants used a private organisation that put forward a scheme that made loan-based PLR a practical proposition, the Registrar, too, could use a private organisation, and that therefore the hon. Member will decide against pressing his clause or his amendment.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member has described one scheme in which he sees great merit. How does he know, however, that there are not other schemes that might be proposed by other companies which might have even greater merit? Is he saying that because he presided over one scheme, that is the last word on the subject?

Mr. Jenkins: Of course, there would be a great temptation to do that. However, the technical investigation group was not recommending a particular scheme. Logica Limited is not committed to any one scheme; it sought to create something that was possible out of that which appeared impossible.
The group consisted of representatives of authors—Ms. Maureen Duffy of the Writers' Action Group and Mr. John Coleby of the Society of Authors—a group from the Department of Education and Science, including Mr. Harvey, who acted as chairman, a most distinguished civil servant whose contribution to public lending right has not hitherto been recognised but should be, and a representative from the Central Statistical Office, who made a valuable contribution. In addition, there were representatives from the Library

Association, the British Library, and the local authorities, including the Association of County Councils. In addition, Logica Limited was represented.
The scheme that was produced was a practical one and will be presented in outline to the Registrar. When the time comes he will be able to employ the services of a private organisation if he so chooses.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). We wish to do everything that we can in the Bill to ensure that the limited amount of money that is available goes to those whom it is intended to benefit rather than to those necessary evils, if I may so describe them, who have to administer the Bill.
It is true that the scheme could be more cheaply administered, for example, by a computer bureau, but I imagine—although I have no information on this point—that there may be some difficulties with the Civil Service. It may feel that it has an interest in the administration of the scheme.
I should like the Minister to give a number of assurances. Will the computer work be hired out to the cheapest and most efficient firm available? If the answer is in the affirmative, that would go some way to meeting my hon. Friend's point. Will the Minister carefully examine what additional staff will be needed? Will he consider the figure of 35 to 40? Is it necessary to have so many? I am in sympathy with my hon. Friend, who always seeks to cut out unnecessary public expenditure. I hope that my hon. Friend will follow the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for Putney and that, having elicited a debate on this topic and having heard the constructive reply of the Minister of State, he will seek leave to withdraw the motion.
On amendment No. 20, it would be feasible and possibly cheaper to administer the scheme through the British Library's own computer, but it is not certain that that would help matters, since the Bill as drafted requires authors to register before they can become eligible for public lending right. Therefore, if


the computer were brought into play, it would be necessary to go through the list twice.
There is much to be said for Government amendment No. 63, since it would allow the Secretary of State to control the number of administrative staff and would help to avoid a quangoid burgeoning of bureaucrats—a hideous phrase to describe a hideous possibility.

On amendment No. 64, I suggest that although 40 is on the generous side, 10 is perhaps on the mean side. It is a little too optimistic to think that this could be administered by such a small group of people.

Government amendments Nos. 65 to 68 are not of great importance, but are tidying-up provisions.

4.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I wish to deal first with the drafting point mentioned by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). New clause No. 1 deals with putting things out to tender. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will never put drafting of Bills out to tender because the drafting of the Bill is right. Had the matter gone out to tender, we might have been in some difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman, in common with me, sometimes needs glasses. If he examines the amendment paper and the Bill, he will see that the definite article in the amendment paper has a small"t"and not a capital"T ". Therefore, the first"the"with a small"t"in the Bill is the"the"followed by the words on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman appears to disagree with me, but that is the way in which it has been done. If there had been a capital"T"for the definite article, the draftsman would have included it. Since the draftsman is right and the hon. Gentleman is wrong, we should let the official draftsman carry on with his work.
I should like now to deal with the effects of the Government amendments which have been tabled for clarification. In Committee we discussed the rights and duties of the Registrar, and in Committee I said that, whenever we could, we would try to make the Bill as clear as possible.

By these amendments we are seeking to carry out that undertaking. This makes the position clearer because, legally, if cases were to arise under the Employment Protection Act or other legislation of that nature, as the matter stands the Secretary of State would be the person answerable. From the point of view of administration, the person in charge of the registry, the Registrar, should be the person answerable. The form of words we have used is exactly the same form of words as we have always used to put the matter legally right. The other amendments, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, are purely drafting to make grammatical sense.
Let me deal with new clause No. 1 in detail. The hon. Gentleman said in Committee, and repeated the offer today, that he was prepared to put the matter out to tender. That was a bizarre suggestion when made in Committee, but his clause on Report is a little less bizarre because he wants the Secretary of State to put it out to tender. Nevertheless, the implications of the clause are totally unacceptable to this Government or indeed to any Government, for the reasons I shall give.
First, the clause presupposes the existence of the Registrar. The amendment contains the words"including the Registrar ". Therefore, one sets up a body to create the Registrar and, having set him up, one puts the matter out to tender and allows the Registrar, with others, to tender for the job. There would be a needless administrative cost inherent in the clause. One is setting up a body and subsequently putting the matter out to tender. The difficulty in putting it out to tender arises from the fact—and this kind of consideration arises whatever Government are in power—that a private sector company will be operating in an area in which public money is involved.

Mr. Ridley: Ah!

Mr. Oakes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will hear me out. That is an inherent difficulty where a private sector company is responsible for the administration of money provided by the taxpayer. Things could go wrong with a private company which cannot go wrong with the existence of the machinery we are setting up. Let us suppose, for example, that the private concern to which this


work went, went bankrupt. What would happen if through a mistake, maliciously or in error, that concern exceeded the funds provided by the Government? There would then be a direct charge on public expenditure just because that work had gone out to private tender. Surely Conservative Members would not want that.

Mr. Philip Holland: Is it not a fact that in the United States in the early part of the 1960s the original quangos were not quite the same quangos as we now talk about in the House and elsewhere but private agencies set up to take advantage of Government contracts and existed solely as Government agencies? Does the Minister agree that they were set up privately and were non-governmental organisations as distinct from our national quangos?

Mr. Oakes: It seems an extremely dangerous precedent to quote what was happening in the United States and the way in which Government money was being expended in the early years of the century.

Mr. Holland: No, the 1960s.

Mr. Oakes: Well, even in the 1960s.

Mr. Ridley: Am I right in thinking that the Minister is against putting out to tender the construction of roads to firms in the private sector because that means that public money is being spent by private firms and there is the possibility that they might go bust? Is it now the Government's intention to nationalise all road building firms? That seems to be the logical conclusion.

Mr. Oakes: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman is teasing me. Money is being provided by the Government and the recipients will be authors. If things go wrong, authors as well as the Government could suffer. I accept that things can go wrong with public or private tender. There is a real danger—I think that it is appreciated by the hon. Member for Chelmsford—in calling for tenders from those who wish to be responsible for the distribution of taxpayers' money.
I appreciate that the purpose of the new clause is to save administrative costs. Bearing in mind the remarks in Committee of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I am sure that that is what is behind the new clause.

However, it would not save all that much money. A proportion of the money would go to reimburse local library authorities for their expenditure. The new clause would not save an appreciable part of the £600,000. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) looks amazed. Within the administrative cost is the cost to local authorities of the services that they will provide in supplying information for the register.

Mr. Moate: I reacted with amazement because I could not understand how a large proportion of the £600,000 could be reimbursement to local library authorities. The payment of a staff of 35 or 40 and an expensive Registrar will take the lion's share of the £600,000. The one thing that we have not had is a breakdown of the costs. If the Minister is saying that he has figures, that will help us to understand the breakdown. I hope that he will enlighten us.

Mr. Oakes: I do not have the figures. The scheme has not yet been fully prepared. It is true that the office of the Registrar—especially when we take into account administrative costs, building costs and the purchase of computer time —will take the lion's share. The new clause would not bear on a significant proportion of the costs. Those costs would still have to be paid.
I envisage that it will be the duty of the Registrar to provide the cheapest and most efficient service. In purchasing computer time it will be the decision of the Registrar, based on considerations of efficiency and cheapness, to go either to a public department or a private company. I assure the hon. Member for Chelmsford that there will be no interference with the Registrar's right to take that approach. It will be the Registrar's duty to keep administrative costs to a minimum. The purpose of the scheme is to provide money for authors and not for administrators.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: It appears from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) that there is a scheme in draft. It would help our consideration of the Bill if my hon. Friend the Minister of State were to enlighten us by telling us what stage the draft has reached.

Mr. Oakes: A scheme is being prepared. I am in difficulty because the scheme has to be prepared in consultation with a number of bodies. It is being prepared in consultation with authors, probably with publishers and others linked with authors, most certainly with libraries and library associations and individual libraries and librarians. It is difficult for me to deal with a scheme that has not yet been established. It is no use having consultation if a Minister declares what the scheme will be before it has been discussed with the other parties.
The effect of amendment No. 20 would be to make the Registrar associated in some way with the British Library. I understand what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is trying to do. His purpose is to try to cut administrative costs by utilising the facilities of MARC, the machine readable catalogue, on which new books are entered into the British Library.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford appreciated the difficulty at once when he said that all books are catalogued on MARC whereas an author has to register. Therefore, the two catalogues do not necessarily coincide. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Registrar, if he sees the need to do so and I feel sure that he will, will use the information available at the British Library. He may obtain copies of the computerised records for his own purposes.
From the point of view of realising a financial saving, we would achieve nothing by giving effect to amendment No. 20. I have explained that the new clause and the amendments would not save any money. I have explained that there would be difficulty in a private company administering taxpayers' money. In the light of my explanation, I hope that hon. Members, having thoroughly explored the position in Committee and in the House, will feel able to withdraw the new clause and the amendments.

Mr. Holland: First, I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) for missing his opening remarks. I was delayed by my activities on the Committee of Selection. It may be that the Committee's activities will be a great disappointment to many of my hon. Friends when tomorrow they receive their notifications.
I must advise my hon. Friends that I fear that I am to be a slight disappointment to them. I am not altogether in support of what my hon. Friends are trying to do by means of new clause No. 1. It seems that they are trying to replace a quasi autonomous national Government organisation, with which we are now extremely familiar, with a quasi autonomous non-Government organisation. I know that there would be marginal advantages to the extent that the new clause might remove the potential sin of ministerial patronage. It would, if my hon. Friends are right, be slightly less expensive than the full governmental quango. However, it does not deal with all the other disadvantages of quangos, such as lack of accountability to the House and the inherent disadvantages of a body beyond the reach of Parliament that exercises power beyond the reach of Parliament.
We should closely consider all suggestions leading to the creation of new official bodies. Until a few years ago the appearance of an official body in legislation was a rare event. The idea was"Let us set up an official body to do the job in an impartial and non-political way. What a spendid idea that is." Once or twice a year a new quango would be born, to the plaudits of everybody.
Those preparing and drafting legislation came to the conclusion that the way to achieve popularity, to solve problems and to take some of the responsibility off the backs of Ministers must be to introduce impartial official bodies beyond the reach of Parliament. We have now reached the stage when every new Bill must have at least one more quango. Some Bills have several. It is to be regretted that hon. Members on both sides of the House condone the practice and acquiesce in the quango explosion. The time has come when Back-Bench Members must band together to exert the authority of the House against an Executive that appears to be intent on its destruction.
That is not such nonsense as it may sound. Every new, unrepresentative and unelected quango—and the Registrar organisation proposed in the Bill is one of them—diminishes the power and the authority of Parliament. If the administration of the scheme remains in the


hands of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Minister remains answerable to Parliament and the scheme remains broadly within the control of Parliament. There is precedent for this. If it is farmed out to a quango, we lose control. As the Minister said a few minutes ago, the Registrar will be answerable for the administration of the scheme, not the Minister and not Parliament.
5.0 p.m.
I come to the Bill too late to draft amendments on Report, but I see now how necessary they are. As we all know from personal experience, it is not possible for Members to scrutinise every piece of legislation that comes before the House. There is far too much legislation. It is an occupational hazard that from time to time we miss Bills that we really ought to scrutinise.
I therefore appeal to the House to be vigilant, so that each of us, as we subject to scrutiny those Bills which fall within our normal sphere of interest, may be alert to the danger of proliferating quangos. Let us serve notice on this Government and the next Government that this House will not have its authority eroded in this way.
Life continued for many hundreds of years in this country without these bodies —and certainly without all the bodies not yet set up, and without many that have already been set up. Let us be firmly convinced of the need before we set up any more of them. We could start with the quango in this Bill. At this late stage, the only way to achieve our objective of bringing the power back to this House and back to the Minister would be to persuade the Government to redraft or our friends in another place to amend the Bill suitably, or to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill in order to give the Government an opportunity to introduce a new Bill later in the Session. The Government have very little legislation and there will be plenty of time in which to do it.
I regret that I cannot support wholeheartedly the birth of a quasi-autonomous non-Government organisation just to replace a national Government organisation. Unless the Government can offer a suitable alternative method of administering the scheme, within the reach and control of Parliament—that is my main theme—

I may well feel bound to vote for the new clause as a protest, should my hon. Friends decide to press it to a vote.

Mr. Buchanan: On Second Reading I indicated my association with libraries, and I hope that that will be borne in mind in relation to any intervention that I make today.
I stressed on Second Reading that librarians were falsely accused of trying to torpedo the public lending right. Librarians, like everyone else, want justice for authors. My right hon. and hon. Friends have repeated that objective from the Front Bench. They have said that they want justice for authors. In concluding my speech on Second Reading I said:
 I repeat that 1 am in agreement with the principle that authors should be properly paid, but the proposals in the Bill are unsoundly based and, if passed unamended, would not represent a proper remedy to the authors' problem."—[Official Report, 10th November 1978; Vol. 957, col. 1382.]
That still remains the case, and the whirlwind passage of the Bill through the Committee has left some of us breathless. I can understand the point made by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), in that he is trying to reduce the cost of administration. This aspect is troubling all of us. The cost of administration, running up to £600,000 out of £2 million, is quite preposterous.
Although I cannot support new clause No. 1, I have great sympathy with amendment No. 20, which seems to introduce a principle of national co-ordination. I doubt whether the British Library could undertake the administration of it, but the proposal in that amendment runs very close to the proposal of the metropolitan associations, which indicated that by far the best way of doing this would be to pay on the books purchased, thus saving all the administration that will be necessary through the Registrar and his 45 assistants and the administration that will have to go on through the 70 recording points.
The machine readable catalogue could be used to facilitate the proposal indicated in amendment No. 20. It would be much more economical and would, in the long run, leave much more of the money available for payment to authors. Much will he said about authors here, there and


everywhere, but if we are serious about helping authors we ought to try to cut down the tremendous cost of the administration that is vested in the Bill. For that reason, I am very much attuned to supporting amendment No. 20.

Mr. Ian Sproat (Aberdeen, South): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), because he speaks from a very deep knowledge of the library world, and the knowledge of librarians—of the Library Association—has been ignored so far.
If one had to suggest the categories into which those connected with books outside of this House fall, one might say that most authors and most publishers ate in favour of public lending right and that most librarians and most booksellets are against. I may be wrong in supporting the concluding words of the hon. Member for Springburn in his Second Reading speech and in thinking that the Bill is"unsoundly based ", but I do not think that I am wrong. The other side is very powerfully represented in numbers outside this House, certainly to the same extent as the proponents of the Bill in this House, and yet so far the views of the other side have received very little expression in this place.
I believe that there were 19 speeches on Second Reading, of which five were against and 14 in favour of the Bill. In spite of that, we had only one Member out of 16 on the Committee, for reasons that I quite accept. But it is a fact that the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Springburn has not been expressed forcefully enough in this House. It has not been expressed forcefully enough to the Minister.
I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I sat through the Committee proceedings in 1976. At that time we were struck by the fact that the hon. Lady who was then in charge of the Bill, the Under-Secretary of State, started completely in favour of the Bill—as I presume the Minister of State still is—but by the end of it she was no longer advancing the same argument. She even admitted that she no longer maintained her first arguments in Committee—for example, the argument that high borrowing meant low sales, which underpin the Writers' Action Group case. She said that she accepted,

after all the argument, that this was no longer true. That was a classic librarians' argument, if I may put it in that way. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the hon. Member for Springburn has come into the debate at this stage. I very much hope that we shall have his very important voice raised continually throughout the debate on the subject.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My recollection differs slightly from that of the hon. Member. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Minister reversed her position quite in the way that he suggests. What she said—and I think it is entirely true—is that at the moment libraries are very large purchasers of books. I think that she agreed, when the point was put to her, that at the moment libraries are perhaps the largest purchasers of books.

Mr. Sproat: No doubt we can all refresh our memories by looking back at the Hansard reports of the previous Committees, but I seem to recall the Under-Secretary of State saying, in effect,"It is not my contention that high borrowings mean low sales to authors ".
In short, she accepted what would be called in shorthand the"showcase argument, namely, that libraries would show people who might otherwise not have thought of borrowing books the excellence of those books. This meant that people then went out and bought books for themselves. It is a well-known argument. I have read the many words spoken in the two sittings in Committee and I do not recall any advance in this argument. It is, however, a classic component of this long argument that where there are excellent libraries we find high book sales precisely because the excellence of the libraries promotes sales. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) will confirm that Cambridge is a good example of this, as might be Oxford, Southampton or Aberdeen.

Mr. Holland: It is common sense.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) rightly says, and I am happy to believe it, that it is common sense. There is a mutual stimulus between borrowing and buying, just as the playing of records on radio does not stop people buying records. That is the way it works.
To save time, I will merely deal with three of the seven amendments. I want to speak about new clause No. 1. I should like to make some remarks in amplification of amendment No. 20, for which the hon. Member for Springburn has indicated some qualifying support, and I should like to say a few words on amendment No. 64, which deals with the number of civil servants to be employed in this new quango. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Carlton is present because he is the man, above all, who has alerted the House to the dangers inherent in the quango explosion. His presence here shows that he recognises, as I hope we all do, that another quango is precisely what we are setting up here. All the virtues, but also all the vices, which attach to quangos attach to this new commission or authority, or whatever it is to be called.

Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend seems to be making the point that there is something strange in a new quango being set up by this legislation. I remind him that in practically every Bill that has come before the House this year at least one new body has been set up.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I wish it were not so, but the fact that it is is a greater cause for sadness. If we can now do something to diminish the power of the quango—we may not abolish it entirely, though that would be my hope—we will draw some of the teeth of this new body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) wants the computer facilities which will be necessary put out to tender. As a principle, that is right. I disagree completely with the Minister of State, who says that by putting it to tender we will bring in private business and that will be Intolerable. I will deal with that argument later. My hon. Friend believes that one of the most offensive principles of this Bill—not the most offensive, but what might be called one of the second division offensive principles—is the cost: not just the fact that it will cost £2 million, but the way in which this money is to be spent.
5.15 p.m.
When I say that the cost is wrong, I defy anybody, including the Minister of State, to justify the spending of £2 million

to give the average author £12. The ratio between £2 million and £12 is absurd, however much one agrees with PLR. The Minister of State showed a proper regard for the expenditure of public funds when he said that if we gave it to a private company this money might be misused or lost. If he felt that so sharply—it was the only argument he advanced, so he must have felt it—surely he feels the more sharply the fact that £2 million of public money is to be spent in order to give authors £12.
It will not even give them £12 because, as was said during the Second Reading debate, tax has to come off that £12. What my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham also forgot is the fact that literary agents will be getting their claws into this money. We will be helping not just authors but publishers who will then not have to give their authors so much money because it will be coming from the Treasury. So, for £n we shall probably pay authors under £10 a year.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: As my hon. Friend is surely aware, authors do not on the whole write books that are equally popular. What happens is that a few authors write books which sell in tens of thousands and many authors write books which sell very few copies. These are taken out of libraries very infrequently. So under the scheme a comparatively small number of authors will draw substantial sums, whereas the average author will get far less than £12 He will be lucky to get 50p.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend's opening hypothesis cannot be faulted. Many authors make much money and many make little. One of the objections is the fact that we are giving rich authors more money. That is a principal objection of mine to the way in which this £2 million is to be spent.
We are talking about the cost of 400 kidney machines. We are always told that we cannot have more kidney machines because there is not enough money. Yet along comes an articulate and elitist body of rich authors and they get £2 million out of the Government just like that. I do not know why it should be so much easier for rich and healthy authors to get money like this from the Government than for sick persons in need of kidney machines, but the authors have


managed it so far. One of our duties is to see that a proper sense of social priority is established. I do not believe that authors, rich or poor, rank at the top of the list of those who need Government help.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is back again, as he will appreciate this point. We are to spend £2 million to give the average author £12, though it may be less. We know that one of the points of this Bill in the eyes of its progenitors—I think the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) likes to be known as the father of the Bill—

Mr. Ridley: Who is the mother?

Mr. Sproat: Perhaps my hon. Friend may care to speculate about that when he replies to the debate.
If the aim of the Bill is to make an appreciable difference in the standard of living of authors—which £12 will not, but a greater sum might—what kind of sum are we talking about? At the minimum, we are talking about £1,000 a year. If the infinite expansion of this quango is to be such as to provide authors with £1,000 a year, we are multiplying by 100 the amount which must be put in. We are talking about a kind of British Leyland of the literary world. We shall have to provide about £200 million to give the average author £1,000—and £1,000 today is not all that much
The distribution of cash as set out in this scheme—viz, £2 million of public expenditure for £10 to the average author per year—is crazy. But if we are to improve it along the lines suggested by the progenitors of the Bill—viz, a direct and substantial improvement in their standard of living—we are talking about a sum so gigantic, £200 million, that surely not even the most rabid supporter of the principle of the Bill could agree with it at a time of financial stringency or, indeed, at a time of financial lavishment. I suggest that even this Government might be able to find better ways of spending £200 million than on a lot of authors, many of whom are extremely rich and part-time anyway. That is one of the prime objections to the way in which the financial structure is organised.
Another point concerns the £600,000 to be spent on administration. That is about

30 per cent. of the total sum available. It is absolutely crazy. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) is not present. During the course of the last Bill one of the most valuable services which he performed in Committee was to tell us what happened in the Performing Right Society. I think that my hon. Friend is a musician and used to lead a band. Every time he played a particular melody, he would get in touch with the Performing Right Society and it would ensure that a certain amount of money for the performance of that melody went to the composer. I understand that is the principle upon which the Performing Right Society works. Yet the Performing Right Society, which I understand is not a Government body, has administrative costs—I am open to correction—which are less than half of what the Government are proposing here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton rightly talked about quangos. He has vast knowledge of the whole miserable area of quangos. I suggest that to set up a new body to deal with authors' rights which takes up 30 per cent. of the money available when the Performing Right Society can do a similar job for less than half that amount is ludicrous. Surely that should start bells ringing in Whitehall.

Mr. Ridley: No.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend indicates that it does not set bells ringing in Whitehall.

Mr. Ridley: They do not care.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend may be right. At least, it is our job and duty to make them care. We must din into the heads of Ministers that, if they have so much money to spare for this area, they might spare a little more for other areas. I have already mentioned kidney machines.

Mr. Holland: Is my hon. Friend sure that he has made the point clear enough to the House? There is a distinction to be drawn between the total amounts spent on administration by each type of body. In some instances it is public money and in others it is money provided by the industry or industries concerned. Is not that an important point?

Mr. Sproat: It is a very important point. It relates to what my hon. Friend


the Member for Carlton mentioned earlier, which the Minister of State did not seem to take on board. The original quangos in the United States, of which this is a kind of bastard offshoot, were private bodies. Presumably they were under stricter financial control than this PLR authority. That is the whole point. People ask"What are quangos?"I am open to correction, but I understand that originally quangos were non-governmental bodies, whereas they are now national Government bodies. My hon. Friend was entirely right to draw that distinction.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the Performing Right Society and compared it favourably, as I understand it, with the proposed Registrar on the question of the cost of administration. If we are to consider quangos, I suggest that the Performing Right Society is not a classic example which we would wish to emulate. Does my hon. Friend agree that that body, which was set up with statutory backing, has been virtually unanswerable on many aspects of its affairs? Considerable efforts have been made by individuals to try to change the voting rights in the PRS and many questions have been asked about loans to its executives. It has been difficult for individual members to produce the changes that they wanted. Indeed, it has been virtually impossible for Members of Parliament to question Ministers on those matters. Is not that a classic example of a quango at work?

Mr. Sproat: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has raised that matter. I should not like the House to be under any misapprehension regarding what I said about the Performing Right Society and its relationship to the proposed public lending right authority, or whatever it is to be called, which we are to set up. I do not—and I hope I did not—set myself up as a great defender of the Performing Right Society, because frankly I know nothing about it. I do not know anything more about it than—I did not stop speaking, so my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge should not laugh too quickly—what my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter told us in the Committee, which was the percentage that was spent on administration, and what I have read in various publications about the problems that it is having re-

garding loans, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham reminded us.
I am not defending the Performing Right Society other than to say that if it can keep its expenses down to 12½ per cent., or whatever it is, I fail to see why the Government should set off by saying that administrative expenses for this authority could be 30 per cent. or slightly more. That was the point that I was making. Perhaps we may come back to other aspects of the Performing Right Society and its extremely illuminating parallel later. I do not know how illuminating it is, but at least it provides us with some parallel or comparison to put against this body which the Government are proposing to set up here.
The hon. Member for Putney, the father of the Bill, in his few interpolations in Committee, was rather offensive to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. If I remember rightly, he called them barmy. I do not know whether that is a parliamentary expression, but it certainly sheds a new light on parental responsibility. I think that we all take with a considerable pinch of salt the knowledge and wisdom of the hon. Member for Putney on this subject.
My hon. Friends may remember that the father of the Bill was the man who delivered himself of the immortal maxim in a Government circular that any work of 800 pages must be worth more than a mere essay. As far as I am concerned, that is almost the ultimate philistinism. Yet there sits the father of the Bill. Again, today, out of the bonded warehouse of his knowledge, he regaled us of the time when he was the Minister who put public lending right on the road down which we are still walking.
The hon. Member for Putney made a rather more moderate intervention today. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, he suggested that the Registrar could put out to public tender if he wished. But the Minister of State contradicted his hon. Friend and said that that would be blasphemous in Civil Service terms because of the public money aspect.
Where I disagree with the hon. Member for Putney on this occasion is that it is not just a case of the Registrar being


able to put out to public tender the administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury wants a guarantee that he must put it out to public tender so that there will not be any suspicion of the Government perhaps not liking this company or another. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned International Computers Limited, in his own constituency, as being a company which might get the contract. Let us suppose that just before the Registrar was about to put out the tender, International Computers Limited were to pay its employees a 17 per cent. wage rise. Would the Minister of State then jump up and say"Ah, we all know that ICL has submitted the lowest tender, which means that we could save the taxpayer another £10,000 or give another £10,000 to the authors, but it is breaching Government policy and it will not get this contract any more than Ford will supply Government cars "? That is exactly a parallel situation. Therefore, in those circumstances, 1CL will not have its tender accepted.
5.30 p.m.
That is the sort of muddy road down which we are walking. That is why I back completely my hon. Friend's new clause, because he said that the administration of the system must go out to tender. If this is taken in conjunction with the second part of the new clause—that it has to be laid before Parliament—we will know exactly what is going on. I believe that in a later amendment my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham requires all these sorts of details to be laid before the House of Commons so that we know exactly what the Registrar gets up to if this Bill comes into being.
I shall not go into all the general arguments against quangos which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton so rightly, by implication, put before the House. There is the"jobs for the boys"aspect. Who would be the Registrar? Perhaps some aesthetic trade unionist reaching the age of 65, with an assistant to help him because he does not know very much about books. Or it might be the hon. Member for Putney. Perhaps he thinks himself extremely suitable not only to be the father but also to bring up the child. What could be more suitable in some ways? I do not know how much the hon.

Gentleman knows about books, especially when one thinks of his famous maxim that a work of 800 pages—one thinks of"Forever Amber "—is almost worth more than any much shorter work—one thinks of"Torrents of Spring by Turgenev. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman still attaches himself to that maxim, but I shall not labour the point at this stage. Perhaps we can return to it later.

Mr. Ridley: I tried to facilitate the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) having an opportunity to become Registrar by removing the disqualification clause in the schedule which prevented hon. Members from accepting the post, but the hon. Gentleman did not support me. I wonder whether my hon. Friend thinks that that is because the hon. Gentleman does not want to be Registrar or whether he thinks that Putney is such a rocky seat that disqualification will not worry him anyway?

Mr. Sproat: I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that the hon. Member for Putney is not standing again in any case. Therefore, the second of my hon. Friend's options falls.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I shall not bother to correct many of the other massive inaccuracies in which the hon. Gentleman has indulged, except to deny them in a totally blanket fashion, but I must specifically deny the suggestion that I do not intend to stand again for Putney. I most certainly do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) that he confines himself more specifically to the contents of the new clause?

Mr. Sproat: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge tells me that he was guilty of wishful thinking. The only reason why I mention the hon. Member for Putney was his interesting suggestion, for which I give him credit because it went further than the Minister, that the Registrar would be able to put this out to tender. That was the point of bringing in the father of the Bill.
Another point on which I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will elaborate further relates to the extraordinary doctrine propounded by the Minister that one cannot


give public money to private companies. I thought that that was what section 7 of the Industry Act was all about. Perhaps it is about to be repealed. As my hon. Friend said, every road which has ever rolled over the acres of this green country has been built by private enterprise. Is there now to be set up a nationalised body, or is every council house to be built by corporation workers in future?
This sounds ridiculous, but that is what was said—that one cannot give public money to private companies. The Minister does not seem to worry about giving public money to public companies. The shining example of British Leyland hovers over all our minds on this occasion. That does not seem to worry the hon. Gentleman. But the idea that one should not seek for the lowest tender because it might be a private company and that money given to the private company might go astray seems to me to hypothecate the most extraordinary and unlikely series of coincidences. It is certainly far more likely that the money would go astray if it was given to nationalised companies.
Another point I should like to emphasise with regard to the offering of competitive tenders is that we are trying, and will continue to try, to save money. If £2 million is to be given to literary people, let it at least go to the people who write books. I have already indicated that publishers will no doubt get their sticky fingers on it. I know that literary agents will get their fingers on it, because the agent has not been born who never took less than 10 per cent. of any money which went to one of his authors —or, if he has, perhaps someone would introduce me to him.
Therefore, for a start, we are subsidising publishers, agents and rich authors. That is another amendment to which we shall come. It is just as well that hon. Members see this in perspective.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: And printers.

Mr. Sproat: Printers might be a worthier cause. I think that amendment No. 4 deals with this matter and with book illustrators and so on. The point is that we should save what money we can. If £10,000 or whatever is to be saved, let us at least give it to the writers of the books. I do not think that they receive

injustice, but, if injustice there be, at least let the money go to them. Let it not go to the administration and its £600,000 a year.

Mr. Ridley: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would pay every author to give up writing books in order to try to get on to the staff of the quango, because under the Bill all 40 members will be paid more than any author?

Mr. Sproat: That is true. If I were a poor author as opposed to being a poor Member of Parliament, I might say that this public lending right gives me £10 a year whereas it will give the Registrar £10,000 a year, which no doubt will be his salary, which will go up, index-linked, year after year.

Mr. Moate: Much more.

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend says"much more ". I was putting it modestly. But that it just another example of the injustice which the Bill enshrines.
However, I want to pass on to other parts of this interesting series of amendments. I turn my attention to amendment No. 20 which relates to the British Library. The hon. Member for Putney gave an interesting, if all too brief, dissertation on the technical manner in which magnetic pens, bar codes and all the rest worked. Since I have put down this amendment in relation to the British Library and the British National Bibliography, or BNB as it is known, in somewhat technical terms, perhaps I had better say exactly what I mean.
I should like to quote from the little leaflet which goes together with the subscription rates of the British Library so that the House may know exactly what this means:
 British National Bibliography (BNB). Started in 1950, it is a weekly list of new British books arranged according to the Dewey Decimal Classification, with full author title and subject indexes. Now listing over 36,000 items a year, BNB is also published in two interim cumulations and an annual cumulation. Multi-annual Indexes and Subject Catalogues are available for three and five year periods from 1950. BNB is used for book selection, reference work and as a guide to cataloguing and classifications.
 Reference books"is the key in relation to the Bill.
In short, that is exactly what will be required. minus all the books that do


not fall within the remit of the Bill. It includes reference books. The Bill does not include them, but that does not invalidate it, as the Minister of State seemed to suggest. He said that because the list contained more books than we shall be dealing with, the total list was invalidated. That is not so. If the list did not contain more books it would be invalidated because it could not then contain all the books that might be necessary.
The list contains 99 per cent. of the new titles which are published in the country each year, including new editions of old works. For instance, a new edition of a book by Jane Austen published by the Oxford University Press would be included in the BNB list.
The MARC service which is offered by the British Library uses magnetic tapes comprising all BNB MARC records which are sent weekly to subscribing libraries.
My suggestion is not that this amendment is necessarily the right way to calculate the way that public lending right should be carried out but that it is a better and a cheaper way. It is a way which I understand the technical investigation group did not examine. I stand to be corrected.
Will the Minister say specifically whether the TIG investigated that method? If the Minister does not answer, he will find that we are inclined to be a little less co-operative than we are at present. I remind the Minister that we are on the Report stage of the Bill. The Minister has a duty to the House to answer the questions. For various reasons, the Bill had a Committee stage the like of which no Bill has had for a long time. Only one hon. Member opposed the Bill throughout the Committee. The Minister had an easy time. He should now bend his mind to answering the questions that arise out of the Bill. I want the answer to a simple question. Later we might ask more difficult questions. Did the TIG consider this matter; if not, why not?
The British Library has an excellent computer storage of all book titles. We know that the 72 libraries, by whatever method, will check the books that are taken out. Surely matching those selected library tapes with the British Library tapes and its computer service would be

simpler than the method described by the hon. Member for Putney. He said that tapes would move from the British Library to the Registrar and the Registrar would then send them elsewhere.
If we used the British Library, there would be no need to set up a new operation. We could have a Registrar, but he could be located in the British Library rather than in expensive premises in Grosvenor Place, London, SW1, where office space is £20 a sq. ft. The Registrar could be located in a building which is owned by the State. Why should we not use the British Library register and computers? The Minister of State's explanation was not satisfactory. He should have waited to see what other hon. Members had to say.
The advantages involved in such a scheme should have been mentioned in Committee. The Committee would have been a better place to argue these matters. Unfortunately, I was not on the Committee and only one hon. Member out of 16 was opposed to the Bill. Therefore, we have no choice but to argue these points at this stage of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
If the Minister were to avail himself of this solution, or a solution along these lines, there would be several advantages. First, there would be no need for new premises. Perhaps that is a small consideration. But I remember how the nationalised shipbuilding industry set itself up within a couple of miles of the House of Commons. The British Steel Corporation has expensive premises in London. The British National Oil Corporation has expensive and extensive premises in Glasgow and Aberdeen as well as in London. There would be a saving by using the excellent British Library.
Secondly, we should not need so many extra staff. If we used the computer and staff facilities of the British Library, there would be a saving in staff and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said, that is one of our main purposes, in trying to hone the Bill down.
There could also be a saving because the BNB already has a list of the 36,000 new titles which are published each year. My suggestion would also spread out the cost of the computers used by the British Library. If they were given more work.


there would be a saving and an amortisation of the cost for the library.
Who can tell the exact amount of the possible saving? One librarian has told me that £250,000 could be saved if we used the British Library's facilities. That is a substantial slice of £600,000. I am not in the position to justify that amount, but the president of the Library Association suggested that sum.
I hope that before these proceedings are through the Minister of State will be able to justify more sharply the £600,000 which is what he says is the likely administrative cost. I understood that when he responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham the Minister said that the lion's share would go to the libraries because of the extra expense to which they were put.

Mr. Moate: It was I who used the phrase"lion's share"and the Minister agreed with me.

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said it was the"lion's share ". I agreed and said that a significant amount would go to the libraries.

Mr. Sproat: I have always understood that lions get over half an amount. That means that we are talking about £300,000 which will go to the libraries.
In Committee it was said that a fully panoplied civil servant, with his office space, salary and indexed-linked pension and the rest, costs the taxpayer about £10,000 a year. If there are 35 civil servants—there could be 40 according to the Government—at £10,000 a year that makes nonsense of the mathematics. The lion's cubs' share, or the minimum amount involved, is £300,000. The Government suggest that the minimum number of civil servants is 35 at £10,000 a year. That grosses out at more than the Government have calculated, and it is before we even start on the other expenses.
The Minister mentioned another expense, that of paying the computer companies. That does not even come into the calculation. We are discussing only the first group of amendments, and we find that the Government cannot even do their mathematics properly. I hope that we shall hear more about that as the Bill proceeds.
I turn now, very briefly, to the other amendment which I tabled which is included in this group of amendments, namely, the one on the number of civil servants. The Government, as I have already pointed out, say that the number of civil servants necessary to carry this Bill into effect will be between 35 and 40. I suppose that 35 to 40 is not a very great percentage discrepancy. I should be interested to know what the Minister envisages those 35 to 40 civil servants doing.
What I am suggesting in the amendment is that the number of civil servants should not be 35, or any number between that and 40, but 10. I shall attempt to justify why. I think that 10 is a more reasonable number, both in terms of the general British taxpayer who will have to foot the bill for this public lending right authority and even for authors.
Given that the principle is right—which I do not grant—and that the money should go to authors, I am, in my amendment, advancing the case of the authors by suggesting that less money should be spent on civil servants, thus freeing more money for the authors.
Why do we need 35 to 40 civil servants? It cannot be because of the work that is done in the libraries. It cannot be because of what the hon. Member for Putney regaled us with, namely, the interesting electronic way in which all this recording will be done, the ticking off of the books, the transferring on to tapes, and the posting of the tapes. None of that will be done by these 35 to 40 civil servants. That will all be done by the library staff.
What exactly are these 35 to 40 civil servants supposed to do? What is the basis on which the Government say"We want 35 people, each costing the taxpayer £10,000 a year "? That is a lot of money. What do we know that we have got? We know that there will be a Registrar. Exactly what he will do, apart from oversee the whole, we are not sure. No doubt he will be a kind of figurehead. When we have to entertain cultural delegations from Bulgaria and the junior Minister at the Foreign Office does not know who on earth he can call upon to sit next to the non-English-speaking poet who is the pride of Bulgaria, no doubt he will call up the Registrar and say"You are a literary man. Come along ". So that will


be something for him to do. That will be a figurehead function for the Registrar.
Of course, the Registrar will have one important and specific duty to perform which springs out of the Bill. There will no doubt be others about which the Minister can tell us, but one that springs out of the Bill is that it will be up to the Registrar to take responsibility regarding which authors are allowed to go on the list. This vital area concerns the question of authors living abroad, foreign authors, British authors living in tax havens, and so on, and authors of reference works, joint authors, compilers, editors or illustrators of books, 90 per cent. of which consist of illustrations. These are the sorts of people we shall consider in a further amendment.
It will be up to the Registrar to decide whether they can go on the list and their heirs thereafter can have 50 years of benefit. So it is a very important job. The Registrar will be deciding a high standard of living or a rather less high standard of living for many people for many years. That will be his job.
In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury —I am sorry that I heard only a few of the many words of wisdom which dropped from his lips in Committee—made some interesting points about censorship. I think that we became involved in the question of pornography or racially discriminatory books. Perhaps the hon. Member for Springburn, with his knowledge of libraries, will care to comment on this.
As I understand it,"Biggles ", a creation of Captain W. E. Johns, is no longer allowed on the shelves of certain libraries in the state of South Australia. I have nothing against"Biggles ". He was one of my heroes of my boyhood. I loved the"Biggles"books. But will librarians now be able to say"We will not allow this author on our shelves "? The answer is"Yes ", because under the present system local authorities can decide the books that will be allowed to rest on their shelves.
Let us suppose that a local authority decides that it will not allow on its library shelves the works of Captain W. E. Johns. Perhaps I should think of another example, because the good captain is, alas, dead. There will be other live authors

whose books will be removed from the shelves. Suppose an outhor was removed from the shelves of one of the 72 libraries selected for deciding how the public lending right should be distributed. This is a serious point.
Let us suppose that W. E. Johns, for the sake of argument, were still alive. I select him because his books have been banned. This is not a hypothesis; it is a reality. He has been banned from library shelves. I believe that the"Just William"books have been banned from certain libraries in this country.
If librarians or local authorities ban from the shelves of certain libraries the works of certain authors, what will the Registrar do about it? How will he then be able to compute how much money should go to a particular author? I do not know the answer. Nobody mentioned it in Committee; the Committee stage was so short. I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, had he not been so breathless, would have done so.
Here is a very important practical point. Local authorities have the right to ban certain authors, and if they do so in only selected libraries how do we then judge how much of the public lending right should go to such particular authors? There is another injustice.
I do not suppose that many authors would be banned. I would not ban any of them, but none the less some are banned. If they are banned, that detracts from their ability to benefit under the Bill. This is, perhaps, a matter which we can clear up later, but certainly deciding which author will be allowed on the list is a very important power for the Registrar.
Therefore, that is the first person out of the 40. We have accounted for one so far. Presumably there will be a secretary, so that is two. The secretary will write letters to the libraries saying"Thank you for sending us your magnetic tapes. We have now despatched them to the computer company." The secretary will no doubt be sending the computer tapes on to the computer company, or to the British Library if my amendment No. 20 were to be accepted.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman is to embark upon speculation about the duties of the Registrar, he need go no


further and take up any more time of the House because they are all set out in some detail on page 4 of the first report of the technical investigation group. If he had read those before he came into the Chamber, he could have saved himself and the rest of us a good deal of time.

Mr. Sproat: This is a very interesting gathering. We all know that the Government like to impose upon people sanctions to which Parliament has not given approval. We know that many things go on underneath the counter. That is the way the Labour Government work. But the idea that one has to read every paragraph of some report produced by the hon. Member when he was temporarily a Minister at the Department of Education and Science a few years ago it absolute nonsense. What we are discussing is this Bill.
The point I raised was that the books of certain authors are taken off the shelves in certain libraries because certain public authorities care to exercise censorship. I asked a specific question:"How would such an author get his just deserts?" In the case of"Just William"or"Biggles ", were Richmal Crompton and W. E. Johns still alive, how would they benefit? It is no use pointing to some report by the technical investigation group and saying that that is how it would happen. We are not discussing the report of the TIG here; we are discussing the Bill. In the Bill it does not say what would be done, and this House has a right to know.
In my search for some 40 people—I will not go on speculating about who they might be—the Registrar is certainly the only person of whom we know. Presumably there will be an accountant to send out cheques, to work out exactly how much is owed and to get the information back from the computer tapes.
I do not know whether any of my hon. Friends have read"Vote for Love"by Barbara Cartland. It is a very interesting study of the suffragette movement and how a woman fell in love with a Member of Parliament and how it changed her views on the subject of votes for women. That is perhaps a book that hon. Members might like to read. I have not read a great gamut of Barbara Cartland's works, but she is a very popular author, and no doubt somebody will have to work out how often her books

have been taken out and how much she is owed. Therefore, we shall have an accountant to decide all that.
So far, I have accounted for three people—the Registrar, his secretary and an accountant, or somebody who sends out the cheques.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is surely making rather heavy weather of this matter. There will be a careers officer for a start, to make sure that there is an adequate promotion structure within the quango. Then there will be a training officer. Then there will be a training college, probably somewhere up the Thames valley, I would think, where the staff will go for six-month training courses on a specially agreed programme. By the time that they have all, first, been promoted and, secondly, been trained, the number concerned in that will reach fairly near 40 before anyone is left to do any work.

Mr. Sproat: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. Holland: Probably the busiest executive of all will be the recruitment officer.

Mr. Sproat: I bow to the superior wisdom, foresight and prescience of my hon. Friends. I have managed to find four people—not 40, which is what the Government are saying. So we still lack about 36 people. But perhaps, as my hon. Friend suggests, that is how the number will be made up.
This is a serious question: how on earth will this group employ 40 civil servants? I have suggested five. Generously, I shall double it and make it 10. Ten is the number I have in my memory.
I close these few brief remarks. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury on new clause No. 1. I hope that he will return to the argument. I must say that one abuses language to call the remarks uttered by the Minister of State an argument, but I hope that my hon. Friend will return to that, such as it was.
I believe that the British Library has a much larger function to exercise in this matter than the Government appear even to have considered, let alone to have considered and rejected. I think that the


number of civil servants, 40, even by the methods which the Government themselves propose in the Bill, is grotesquely high. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will feel called upon to press this matter to a Division later tonight.

Mr. Moate: Perhaps I may say how much I enjoyed listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). He expressed very comprehensive arguments with his usual succinctness and brevity.
I am also pleased to see the presence of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Miss Jackson), who led us so well through the earlier long Committee stage. I hope that her presence here is a sign of how this Bill will also proceed and that it will not finally reach the statute book this Session.
I regret that at the moment my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the Shadow Leader of the House, has temporarily had to leave us. He explained why that was so. There was only one point about which I had some doubts in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. He gave credit—if that is the right word—for the paternity of this scheme to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins). My hon. Friend suggested that the hon. Member for Putney was the father of the Bill. But, had my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford been present, I think that he, too, in accordance with his past remarks, would have claimed paternity. There is a dispute.
In this case I suggest that we need to exercise the wisdom of Solomon. We have two persons claiming the same infant. I suggest that we tear the wretched document in half and give half to the hon. Member for Putney and half to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. Perhaps that would satisfy honour all round and we need have no more of the argument about parentage.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The judgment of Solomon on the disputed child resulted in the true parent being found, and the child was not torn in half. Whilst I am on my feet, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), a most distinguished

Member, has had a lifelong interest in this matter. I would certainly assign to him the parentage of it.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps I can clarify this point. I regard my role in this matter as accoucheur, and the person whom I delivered was certainly not the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).

Mr. Moate: There we see how right I was to question the credit that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Putney. It is a matter of some dispute.
However, be that as it may, it seems that there has been a greater argument about parentage than about what this infant will grow into. Perhaps we as a House of Commons ought to consider far more what the infant will grow up to become rather than who actually gave birth to it.
The Bill and particularly the matter that we are discussing in this group of amendments do a grave injustice to authors. Far from giving justice to authors, as many of the Bill's supporters have claimed, it is a cause of injustice to authors. It is something of a confidence trick on the authors of this country. It does a disservice to the British library system and to all the libraries throughout the United Kingdom. It is perpetrating something of a nonsense on the British taxpayer that he should be asked to pay an amount of £2 million to set up a scheme, of which one-third will go on administration.
It does not make sense for the House to set up a scheme that would involve the payment of, at most, an average of £12 to an individual author but at the same time might involve the payment of at least £12,000 for a Registrar, heaven knows what to the assistant registrars, who are actually mentioned in the Bill, and heaven knows how much to the personal assistants to the Registrar and the inevitable secretaries to the personal assistants of the assistant registrars. We are in danger of putting a nonsense on the statute book.
It is because I believe that the Bill is doing an injustice to authors, to libraries and to taxpayers alike that I have opposed it, will continue to do so, and support the new clause. The new clause at least goes some way towards remedying


the situation. It could help authors. In that sense, therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the way that they have reacted so far to this proposition.
In a way, it is rather regrettable that the the Minister of State chose to speak so early in the debate. I know that sometimes it is suggested that this is done to help the House, but on this occasion it would have been better for him to have listened to the many arguments that have been advanced from both sides of the House so that he could then deal with those and, perhaps, even change his mind. I submit to the Minister of State that the argument that he put forward was not very strong and that there has been a very strong case instead put by the supporters of the scheme. However, I shall return to those points.
I want first to deal with a number of the points made by the hon. Member for Putney. He brought to the debate the considerable experience that he gained from his work in setting up the technical investigation group and so on. In many ways we have been deprived of a constructive and detailed debate on much of this legislation. I shall not go into the reasons for that, but very often the supporters of the Bill have sat mute and have not given us the benefit of their experience and opinions. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Putney has been quite helpful.

Mr. Sprout: He is the only one.

Mr. Moate: Indeed. Perhaps he is the Bill's only supporter. It is extraordinary that he seems to be the only supporter of the Bill present today. This Bill is supposed to have overwhelming support, apparently, from the Government —indeed, from both Front Benches—but only one person has spoken in support of it. What about the Liberal Party, too? The Liberals are supposed to be in favour of it. Where are the Liberals? However, I shall not be diverted into that matter now.
I want to deal with a number of the specific points mentioned by the hon. Member for Putney. First, he referred to the way in which the scheme would work in a library itself. He rather surprised me, because I had got the impression that the administrative burden on a library would be very little and that the use of light

pens and bar codes would enable the recording of the loan to be done with the minimum of interference with the lending system. However, the way that the hon. Member described it implied that there could be a considerable burden and something of a delay in the handling of the books.
I am only paraphrasing what the hon. Member said. What he implied was that a librarian would be able to pile up the books until a quiet moment arose later when he or she could then make the necessary entries. That presents a picture of piles of books waiting to be entered into the system. If that is to happen at a busy moment, it is understandable that many librarians would feel that this was a considerable interference in their administration. Therefore, this matter is certainly not as simple or as swift as we are given to understand.
If the hon. Member for Putney wishes to correct that impression, I shall gladly give way to him. It seems to me that, if there are to be these delays, the cost of administration could be correspondingly greater.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is a great problem here. One is torn between a desire not to allow statements which are inaccurate to stand on the record uncorrected and an equal desire not to feed the hon. Gentleman's desire to talk the Bill out. It is a dilemma. But on this occasion I shall help him on one point. It was the estimate of those who were looking into what would happen in libraries, if my memory is correct, that the counting of the books could be done in slack times and that it would not involve a large number of extra staff. There would be a certain number of extra staff, but it was thought that in a small library the work of an additional half-person would be involved and that in a larger library the use would be greater. It was estimated that some additional staff would be involved, but the number would not be enormous.

Mr. Moate: I can only express the hope that the pile of books will not be allowed to rise so high that half a person will have difficultly in reaching the top. I suspect that there will be severe recruitment problems for small libraries when they approach the local jobcentre and say"We would like some half-librarians "


Half-librarians are going to be rather difficult to acquire. Even if the hon. Gentleman is talking about averages, that still represents rather a difficulty, because I think he will find that today one can get only complete persons, even with high unemployment, which will mean a rather larger recruitment than he envisages.
If extra people are to be needed in these libraries, again we have to examine the costings put forward by the Government. They are already in need of detailed examination. If extra staff are to be needed in the libraries, with the additional cost that that will mean, I suggest that the figure of £600,000 that we have been given will need considerable uprating. I suspect that it is totally inadequate.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the number of mini-computers that will be needed in the majority of the 72 libraries. Here again, we have not had as much information as we would have liked. I do not think that in our previous proceedings on this subject we went into whether a computer or terminal of some kind would be needed at every library. The impression is now being given that the Registrar would have to make arrangements for the installation of small computers at each sampling point. If that is so, it would be a considerable expense, and the House is entitled to know how much is involved.
We have been told on previous occasions that more and more libraries are getting computers and that that will facilitate this whole system. It was put forward as a strong argument in favour of the scheme. But the impression that I have been given is that very few libraries have computer systems. One would like to see more—I am sure that such systems are desirable in themselves—but if very few libraries have them so far, that represents either a major impediment to the scheme or a considerable increase in expenditure. Again, the hon. Gentleman tended to play down the cost of the extra computers.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point which I had not realised. It is that the registering of the loan would be made when the book was returned rather than when it was loaned out. It is an interesting point, and I am sure that he is right when he says that if a book is not returned it will not make a significant im-

pact on the sample. On the other hand, one of the causes of the existence of the Bill has been the anger—quite unreasoning, I suggest—that a minority of authors have felt when their books have been loaned out and they have gained nothing for them. I think that they might feel more anger when they find that the person who fails to return a book does so in a way which means that the author will get no payment whatever for the lending out of that book. It seems an injustice that if a book is taken from the library the author gets no money for the loan of it.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Sproat: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) does not agree with the point that the author gets nothing. It is worth pointing out that at every stage the author has benefited from the fact that his book is in a public library. He may not get further benefit from the fact that it is borrowed, but he has already benefited, first, by the fact that he has received 10 per cent. of the price that the library paid for his book—if the book sells 5,000 copies or more it may be 12½ per cent. or more; secondly, he receives the advantage which accrues to many authors, particularly of first novels, that his book might never have been published at all for sale in the retail outlets—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is going very wide indeed of the new clause.

Mr. Sproat: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am attempting to explain how authors benefit when their books go into the libraries. My hon. Friend said that authors did not benefit from borrowings. I shall give just one more reason from the royalties and economics of publishing. The third benefit is that the libraries provide a showcase which acts as a spur to the sale of books in the shops. Therefore, authors do benefit from borrowings from the libraries.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful for that emphasis on a point that has been made on a number of occasions but which does not seem to have registered with the supporters of the Bill. Perhaps I can link it with the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan), who rightly emphasised that


libraries want authors to be properly paid. We all want them to be properly paid. One has to examine what we mean by"properly paid ", but presumably it means their being paid an adequate amount in relation to the merits of the works which they are having published.
I suspect that there is a strong case for saying that at present many authors are not properly paid. Many are immensely successful and receive great sums of money, but there are many who, although extremely worthy, do not get very much, or enough on which to survive. If we are arguing that case, it is a grotesque travesty of justice to publish a Bill that excludes reference writers who probably do more work for less return than the average novelist.
There is no justice in a Bill that sets up a scheme whereby the major beneficiaries are the Registrar and his staff, whereas the people who will benefit least are the authors most in need. It is equally an injustice to place this burden —particularly the cost of administration —on the taxpayer when the people who are really responsible for seeing that there is a fair return to the authors do not pay anything. I am referring to the publishers.
I do not seek to heap coals on the heads of the publishers and to say that they are exploiting authors, but it seems to me that a situation has developed whereby the author is getting less from the publication than he should be, whereas the retailer, the publisher and the printer are probably doing quite well out of it. Perhaps the situation has got out of hand, and the Government should be concentrating on trying to find some way whereby authors get a better return from the market via the publishers rather than producing a puny pathetic scheme like this, which does not help but only pretends to help authors. Where is the justice of a Bill that pays only £12, on average, to authors, if they are lucky, but provides £600,000 at least in expenditure and is to pay handsome salaries to the Registrar and a large staff? Is that what the Bill is about?
My main concern at the moment is with new clause No. 4 because I believe that it makes a genuine attempt to deal with this major problem. Much of the criticism of

the Bill, inside and outside the House, has stemmed from the fact that there is a very high expense ratio, and the only way the Government can reduce that ratio is by increasing the amount of the central fund to an unacceptable level. That is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. I think that it was the present Secretary of State for Trade who said on Second Reading that if I thought that that £2 million would be increased dramatically and quickly I did not understand the Treasury. I take that to mean that we must expect the £2 million level to persist for some years. If it does, this expense ratio will be unacceptable.
It disappoints me that the Minister of State and other Ministers are so obdurate in refusing any suggestions for improving the workings of the scheme. They seem to think that what they have is perfect. They seem to suggest that the Bill is perfect. Hardly an amendment is accepted, and the Government amendments are of a minor, drafting nature. No significant amendment is to be accepted. The Government believe that they have perfection. I do not believe that.
The hon. Member for Putney argued that the technical investigation group had many experts, who had produced a scheme, and that that scheme must be right. That argument does not make sense. This is exactly the point at which Parliament should say"Stop. We do not want another quango. We must not let it go further." The hon. Gentleman said that the technical investigation group had gone to an independent firm and secured information in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) suggests.
That is to misunderstand the point. Of course one can secure the services of experts and obtain independent advice at this point. But that is just the fertiliser that is spread around the land to encourage the quango to grow. Once it has taken root the plant will grow, and after that there is no control over it. My hon. Friend is saying that it is at the point of growth, or even before, that we should step in and insist on new disciplines being imposed upon such a body. Yet the Minister of State is totally obdurate, and no concessions are being made on this matter.
If no changes are made, we shall see the growth of a large body. It will not


be the biggest quango in the land by any means. There are many bigger. But it is another, coming into existence at a time when quangos are being condemned right, left and centre. Yet in a virtually empty House Parliament is allowing another quango to be born. No doubt another will be born tomorrow and another on Monday.

Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend should add that quangos never wither and die. Therefore, the new ones are added to the total all the time and do not replace others.

Mr. Moate: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am very pleased that he is present, because I should like to refer to the excellent publication that he produced—we are all indebted to him for it—called"The Quango Explosion ", which contains very helpful information. It has an ISBN number, so presumably it will qualify for public lending right if my hon. Friend lodges it in a library.

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend must appreciate that the Registrar will certainly not accept that book, because it questions quangos. There is no doubt that it will be outlawed from library shelves by every library, because it attacks the quango system.

Mr. Moate: I am fascinated by the thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) may join the distinguished ranks of those whose books have been banned from library shelves. We have heard of the banning of the"Biggles"books by W. E. Johns. I believe that Enid Blyton books were once banned in my constituency, presumably because Noddy would have an evil influence on the people who live there. I do not know whether the Registrar would have that power. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend's book reached the library it would qualify for public lending right.
My hon. Friend gave some very helpful information in his book, and I use that information to question some of the figures that we have been given. We have been told that 35 to 40 staff will cost the lion's share of £600,000. I wonder whether that is a true figure. I suspect that the amount could be much higher. We have not been given a breakdown of

costs, so if we are to analyse whether the Bill proposes the right way to proceed or whether we should adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, of going out to public tender, all that we can do is to look at other quangos—

Mr. Holland: Quasi-autonomous national governmental organisations.

Mr. Moate: When we look at other quangos we find figures that give different results. I think that much of my hon. Friend's information comes from press reports—

Mr. Holland: Very little of the material came from press reports. The bulk of the information came from answers by Ministers and from annual reports of the bodies concerned and other official sources.

Mr. Moate: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. It adds greater weight to what I am about to say.
I take first the figures for the Commission for Racial Equality. We are told that the projected cost for 197–9 is £4,747,000, for 200 staff. If we try to work out from that what the Registrar of Public Lending Right would cost, with 40 staff—roughly one-fifth—we arrive at a figure of £900,000 not £400,000 or £500,000.
The figures for the Equal Opportunities Commission are rather different. There the staff number 400 and the cost is only £2 million. For some odd reason, the Equal Opportunities Commission does not seem to have equal opportunities with the Commission for Racial Equality to secure the same salaries and pay for its staff. Nevertheless, we arrive at some very high figures.
Figures for other quangos indicate that the cost of running an organisation with 35 to 40 staff would be much higher than we have been given so far. If we take a figure of about £10,000 a head simply for the bureaucratic costs, we are probably on the low side. That gives £400,000 at 1978 figures. If it comes into operation at all, the Bill will not do so until three years from the commencement date, which is likely to be 1979. We are talking about a 1982 figure. We must expect the £2 million to persist, because statements to that effect have


been made for some time. What will be the cost in 1982 of running an organisation with 35 to 40 staff?
The figures do not end with the matter of staff. There will be the cost of providing computer connections to 72 outlets throughout the country, which will be considerable. There will also be the expense of reimbursing the libraries for considerable staff costs. The hon. Member for Putney has now told us that in some libraries it could be one person and in smaller libraries it could be half a person.
Therefore, the £600,000, the 30 per cent. ratio, could be much higher by the time we come to the operation of the scheme. The Minister of State should be able to give us the figures. The House is entitled to know exactly how the £600,000 is calculated. I should like to know what base year has been taken for the calculation of those costs. Is it 1978, 1979 or 1982? We must know how it relates to the £2 million that will be the starting point for the fund. We have not yet had the sort of information to which we are entitled.
I should now like to explain how I believe the system suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury would be so helpful. The clause suggests that the whole matter should be put out to private tender, that we should ask outside organisations for their bids to administer the scheme. I suppose that that is something of a novelty, but it is about time we had a novel approach to the rising costs of bureaucracy.
The Minister's arguments against the suggestion were very thin. I found preposterous his idea that things could go wrong with a private sector company and that therefore the Government could not possibly allow such a company to enter this area of administration. Do not things go wrong with public administration, day after day?
The Minister then said something interesting, namely, that a private sector company might go bankrupt. That is exactly the point. If something goes wrong with a public sector organisation it does not go bankrupt. We never find out what goes wrong, because all that happens is that it spends more money and then asks the House for more. In this

case, it might take it from the authors. If the Registrar spent more than £600,000 on administration, what would happen? The money would simply come out of the authors' fund. If the expenditure on administration went up to £1 million or £2 million, either there would be nothing left for the authors or the Registrar would come back to the House seeking more money from the taxpayer.
6.30 p.m.
If a private company put in a tender of £500,000 to administer the scheme and then spent too much money, the net result possibly would be bankruptcy. At least it would have to go to its shareholders to ask for more money. Would that be so bad for the authors? I suggest that it would be good for the authors. Would it be bad for the country? I submit that it would be excellent for the country. There would be a discipline which we do not have on a quango and which we do not have on public sector administration. One can find numerous examples. A good one is the direct labour organisations, where costs have soared time and time again. With private companies, had they put in fixed price tenders they would have gone bust.
Then we have the Minister's argument that it is wrong for a private sector company to handle public money. I do not know how many billions of pounds are paid by the Government to private sector companies. The whole economy would grind to a halt if the Minister's principle were adopted. I have been striving to think of examples. I suspect that there are Government bodies using private security organisations. I believe that many such organisations are used at our airports. Presumably they are being employed to protect public money or the wages going to public servants. We do not hesitate to use them, and I suspect that they are an invaluable and essential part of our security arrangements. There must be many more examples where private sector firms are being used increasingly to handle public sector responsibilities, and it sounds to me an excellent idea.
Not only is there a greater discipline on such a body to try to keep down costs, which will not exist with the quango operator, but there is a greater incentive on the organisation to try to administer


the scheme efficiently. If the private operator has put in a tender of £500,000, it might be rather a competitive tender and might not make much of a profit for him. It is up to him constantly to search for ways whereby new schemes can be introduced, innovations can be encouraged, new computer techniques applied, ways of cutting costs found and methods devised to speed up payments to authors. All that would be encouraged because there would be profit at the end of the day for the man managing the system.
It would not work that way with a quango. Once the scheme was set up, it would be regarded as perfection, in the way that the hon. Member for Putney has indicated already. There would be no incentive to change the scheme. If the costs rise further than expected, that will be sad and the quango operator will turn to the Government saying"I am afraid it is costing £1 million out of the £2 million to administer the scheme. The total sum will have to be increased to £4 million if we are to pay the authors." That is what will happen. That is where the growth comes in. That is where the civil servants start to generate more and more staff.
I suggest that there is every encouragement to have a private tendering system and outside contractors to undertake this work. The hon. Member for Putney suggested that this could be done already, just as was done with the technical investigation group. The Registrar could go to an outside organisation and use its services. However, that is hardly realistic. I suppose it is possible that the Registrar might say that he needed only 10 staff and that all the other work could be put out to an outside organisation. With most of the work being done by outside firms, the Registrar's staffing requirements would be few. But can anyone imagine the Registrar, with authority to have 35 or 40 staff, deciding instead to opt for only 10 or 15 and to put out the work to tender? He might do both, but certainly he would not cut down on the size of his empire.
The reality is that once a quango of this kind is established, we have no control over it. We have no control over its efficiency or over its costs. Above all, as

I understand it, we in Parliament have virtually no control over or right to question its day-to-day running.

Mr. Holland: I have made many attempts to ascertain details of the activities and expenditures of quangos. When I attempt to put parliamentary Questions to Ministers, I am always limited to asking who has been appointed and how much they are being paid. Beyond that, usually it is not the responsibility of Ministers to answer.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has made a powerful intervention. Every hon. Member knows how frustrating it is to attempt to put down a parliamentary Question asking about the activities of this or that Government organisation or quasi-Government organisation. Here we are setting up another one.
Even though the Minister of State has spoken already, I am sure that he will be given the leave of the House to answer these important questions. Would hon. Members have the right to table parliamentary Questions about the day-to-day activities of the Registrar? It is not clear from the Bill whether he will be a civil servant. In the schedule he is described as being not a civil servant but very much under the thumb of the Secretary of State. That is the worst of both worlds. Because he is not under the thumb of Parliament, it is probable that we do not have the right to scrutinise his activities. That is quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of Parliament.
If we do not have the right, does the Ombudsman have the right to challenge the activities of a person of this kind? If the organisation was not a quango but was part of the Ministry, a dissatisfied author or a dissatisfied librarian would have the right to take any grievance to the Ombudsman. When an organisation is set up in the way proposed by the Minister, there is no such right.
It is not difficult to think of other areas of administration in which the Secretary of State is directly involved and where aggrieved individuals have been able to go to the Ombudsman and obtain redress. I refer especially to the Insurance Companies Act. Under that, the Secretary of State has considerable powers to disqualify certain persons from being principals of insurance companies. In such cases, because a quango has not been


involved, the individuals have been able to gain satisfaction. Here, by setting up the Registrar as a quasi-civil servant, I suspect that he or she has been removed from the ambit of parliamentary scrutiny. I submit that that is fundamentally wrong.
I deal now with the limitation of staff suggested in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. Earlier, I suggested that the Registrar could decide to put out to contract some of the activities of his registration bureau or whatever it is to be called. I submitted that, given the Bill, the probability was that he would do that and still increase his staff to 35 or 40.
The suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South makes a great deal of sense if one understands the possibility of putting out work to tender. The idea of limiting the staff to 10 is very attractive. There is then a greater encouragement for the Registrar to put out the work to tender. It is a constructive suggestion, and the Minister should think about it. In one sweep, he will remove the possibility of empire building by the Registrar, he will remove a continuing source of irritation to authors and he will encourage the Registrar to use the most efficient systems available to him for carrying out his duties. In that sense, he will be encouraged to use the latest techniques, to go out to computer firms and to put out the work to tender in that way. It would set an interesting example to many other organisations throughout the country.
If the Government will not accept that suggestion, I turn to the other proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South. It is contained in amendment No. 20, which suggests that the responsibility for administering the public lending right shall be exercised through the British Library and the computer facilities known as MARC. The Minister of State was less than forthcoming in his reply, yet this is a constructive suggestion. I do not suggest that the amendment is correctly drafted or posed in the right way. But it would have made a lot more sense if the whole scheme had been based on a desire to use the existing library services rather than set up this new bureaucracy.
We have a British National Bibliography, which is a comprehensive indexing

service of all books published every year in this country. We have the MARC system, which covers all books in copyright on a computer system. Therefore it makes sense to build on that rather than set up a totally new bureau with new computer requirements.
The Minister of State said that one could not build the public lending right on to the existing programme. That may be so, but I am sure that the programmers would be capable of adjusting it so that the returns by the 72 libraries could be recorded accurately by the British Library. I do not know whether the British Library would welcome that. It might throw up its hands in horror at the idea. However, I have a feeling that that would he very much cheaper than spending £600,000 in this way.
The Minister of State knows that over the years this Bill has caused some ill will among librarians. They do not like the scheme. So perhaps he should start again with a new scheme allowing for further consultation and based on the existing arrangements with the British Library. That would increase good will considerably and encourage libraries to co-operate in producing the most efficient and effective scheme possible. I am not suggesting that they will not co-operate anyway. I am sure they will, they are that sort of people, but the introduction of the British library and the existing computer techniques might be a great encouragement to them.
I ask the Minister of State to look at this again and not to be so dogmatic and assertive about the scheme. There must be scope for thinking again throughout the remaining stages of the Bill. In fact, there is scope for second thoughts until the Registrar is set up and his staff recruited. Until then the Minister can look for new and better techniques. But until he finds them I fear that we are stuck with this wretched quango, and it will grow and grow. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford described it as an"evil necessity ". It is evil, but it is not a necessity.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was referring not to that but to the necessary evil of all administration that applies to all our activities. One must have administration, but I agree that it should be cut to a minimum.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Moate: I am glad that my hon. Friend corrected me, and I am glad that he agrees that this administrative exercise is excessive and should be reduced.
It may be that the Government amendments are minor tidying-up ones, but I am not clear about their effect. I do not understand whether they mean that the Registrar's employees are civil servants. In fact, it is less than clear who is responsible for their conditions of service. These amendments suggest that the Secretary of State can dictate the numbers of staff and that the Registrar cannot increase his establishment without the approval of the Secretary of State. If he wants an extra secretary who will make his numbers more than, for example, 35, he must ask the Secretary of State. Do the amendments mean that thereafter the Registrar can decide on the pay, conditions, pensions and allowances of the staff?
But as a result of the amendments we are also told that the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Civil Service will have power over these decisions of the Registrar. This implies that they will have overall responsibility for the pay and conditions of the staff. Will they, or will they not?
This is an important question in terms of the Government's pay policy. We have the present situation in the nationalised industries where there is a dispute about whether they are applying Government pay policy. What is the position with this organisation? Will the Minister have power to say to the Registrar that he cannot give more than a 5 per cent. pay increase? If the Secretary of State has that power, it is ludicrous to suggest that these employees are not civil servants. If that is so, surely these individuals have the right to demand all the advantages of being civil servants. Are they entitled to index-linked pensions, for example? I am not clear how this schedule is supposed to operate and I hope the Minister will answer these questions if he gets the leave of the House to speak again—

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member should know that this is the Report stage and that I do not need the leave of the House to speak again. I shall speak again when he sits down.

Mr. Moate: I look forward to hearing the Minister again, and with that expectation I conclude my remarks.

Mr. Oakes: We have had a very long debate—

Mr. Moate: It has not been long.

Mr. Oakes: It has been a long debate, because we are talking about one new clause and two Opposition amendments. It was generally agreed that the Government amendments being considered were acceptable to the Opposition Front Bench, and Conservative Members did not object when I introduced them.
I rose when I did because no one on the Opposition Benches rose to speak. and also because I thought it right to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I forgot the trio of Conservative Back Bench Members who are as opposed to their Front Bench policy on this Bill as as they are to the Government. In future, I shall delay my interventions until later.
Let us deal with the amendments before us. I shall concentrate on amendment No. 64 because I did not deal with it to any great extent earlier. That was because it had not been moved or discussed at that time. That amendment relates to the number of staff of the Registrar. We can only estimate the number of staff required. Hon. Members will accept that in the early years of the scheme there will probably be more need and demand for staff than in the later years. First, the scheme has to be established. Contact has to be made with the 72 library authorities. The authors will be registered and their applications for registration will have to be considered by the Registrar. All the administrative matters come at the beginning.
I agree with hon. Members that it fewer staff need to be employed when the scheme is in operation, it will be part of the Registrar's duty to cut his administrative expenditure as much as possible. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) spoke of a tremendous growth in microprocessors. If some information can go directly on to a computer so that less human intervention is needed, it will be part of the duty of the Registrar to introduce modem technology, provided it is cheaper and just as efficient.
It is important that the maximum amount of money should not be spent on administration but should be channelled to the authors who are entitled to the remuneration.
Hon. Members asked whether I could provide a better breakdown of the lion's share of the finance. The technical investigation group in its final report in 1975 gave percentages, and there is no reason to believe that the same percentages would not apply today. The report included some detailed estimates of the cost of the scheme. It showed that roughly 55 per cent. would be spent on the Registrar and his office and 45 per cent. on the libraries involved in the sampling.
The report estimated that the total cost, at that time, would be just over £400,000. There has been an updating of the figure to the total cost of about £600,000, but the breakdown between the libraries and the Registrar's costs will be about the same. There is no reason to believe that the proportions will alter.
That figure of £400,000 was based on an expenditure of £1 million. The sum of £600,000 is based on a proposed expenditure of £2 million. That is a significant improvement in administrative costs.

Mr. Moate: On what year is the £600,000 based? Is it current cost or the cost that will apply when the scheme comes into operation?

Mr. Oakes: The figure is on current cost. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South took me to task about the scheme being administered by a private contractor, as envisaged in new clause No. 1. The parallel is not the sort that he was giving, that of roads being laid and the construction company being paid for services rendered. A relevant parallel—I am certain that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will agree because he nodded vigorously at the time, and I think that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) will also concur—would be social security benefits being alloted to a private contractor.

Mr. Ridley: They should be.

Mr. Oakes: Or war pensions?

Mr. Ridley: Yes.

Mr. Oakes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that they should be allotted to a private contractor? The hon. Gentleman is going back to the seventeenth century. Certainly, this country has not seen such a system since then. I am sure that no official party in this House would ever want to see it. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has enlightened me on that. I was merely trying to make what I thought was a fair and reasonable point, namely, that it is wrong for private contractors to administer taxpayers' money for this scheme. The hon. Gentleman clearly has a different view. He and his hon. Friends clearly have a different view from their party and from every other party in the House if they want pensioners to be paid by private contractors.

Mr. Sproat: Who said that?

Mr. Oakes: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I cannot pursue the matter further, because we are so wide apart, but I do not think that it is proper for a private contractor to administer a fund in that way.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South raised the question of discussions by the technical investigation group when considering the British Library facilities. I am informed that it was discussed a great deal. In fact, a member of the group, Mr.D.T.Rogers, is on the British Library staff. Not only were the facilities discussed, but a member of the staff was sitting on the group to advise it.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to assume that all members of the Registrar's staff—35 was the figure he quoted—would receive £10,000 a year, which would take up £350,000 of the administrative costs.

Mr. Sproat: I said that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) had stated that the cost to public funds of the average civil servant, taking account of salary, index-linked pension, car and accommodation, was £10,000 a year. That cost to the taxpayer was not denied. I do not think that the Minister can deny it. I merely multiplied 40 by 10,000. That is how £400,000 would be eaten up.

Mr. Oakes: I do not think that the cost of the registry, taking account of the work done and the salary of the Registrar, would average anything like that sum, for


the reasons that I gave. There is a sort of exchange under which work comes in from the libraries and payments are made. Considerable use will be made of private or Civil Service computers. It is not a fair assessment for the hon. Gentleman to do his multiplication sum in that way. He has no grounds for arriving at that kind of sum.

Although a large part of the hon. Gentleman's speech did not seem to relate to the new clause or to the amendments, he asked me, at considerable length, what would happen if a librarian banned a book. Let me emphasise that the 72 libraries are only a sample. In those circumstances, the book would not be counted in the sample. If the Registrar found that a number of the libraries directly feeding into him were being told by their councillors that a particular author should be banned, he would look into the matter. That would be part of his duty. He would look into why that was happening, but he could not stop the library authority, which is a power unto itself, from doing that. If the councillors of an authority said that an author should be banned, he would be banned. If a number of libraries were banning an author, the Registrar would obviously look into the matter.

7.0 p.m.

The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked whether registration of a borrowing should take place when the borrower takes the book out or when he returns it. The TIG report suggested that the compilation of the record should be done when the borrower returned a book. The hon. Member for Faversham put a fairly cogent argument in favour of the compilation taking place when the book was borrowed. That is a matter which could be discussed within the scheme by librarians, authors and publishers, and, as a result of those discussions, a workable scheme will be brought into operation.

We have had a long debate and I have tried to assist the House with the factual information which was required to answer the points made by the hon. Members who have taken part. I hope that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will not press his new clause to a Division.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 13.

Division No. 10]
AYES
[7.02 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Alison, Michael
Crawshaw, Richard
Hannam, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hardy, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Davies, lfor (Gower)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Home Robertson, John


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Doig, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Horam, John


Bates, Alt
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Beith, A. J.
Dunlop, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnet, Jack
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Durant, Tony
Hunter, Adam


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Edge, Geoff
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Boardman, H.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans, Gwyntor carmarthen)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
John, Brynmor


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (Newton)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Brown. Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Judd, Frank


Buchanan, Richard
Flannery, Martin
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Forrester, John
Kilfedder, James


Carmichael, Neil
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Kinnock, Neil


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Lamborn, Harry


Cohen, Stanley
Freud, Clement
Lamond, James


Coleman, Donald
George Bruce
Lee, John


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Gould, Bryan
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Conlan, Bernard
Graham, Ted
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Corbett, Robin
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cowans, Harry
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Litterick, Tom


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grocott, Bruce
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Loyden, Eddie




McCusker, H.
Richardson, Miss Jo
Thompson, George


McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


McKay, Alan (Penlstone)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tllley, John


Maclennan, Robert
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Madden, Max
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Magee, Bryan
Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Roper, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Terry (Klngswood)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Ward, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
Sedgemore, Brian
Watkins, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Selby, Harry
Weetch, Ken


Molyneaux, James
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Welsh, Andrew


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Sllkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Morton, George
Sinclair, Sir George
Whltlock, William


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Skinner, Dennis
Wigley, Dafydd


Newens, Stanley
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Noble, Mike
Snape, Peter
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Oakes, Gordon
Spearing, Nigel
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ogden, Eric
Speed, Keith
Woodall, Alec


Orbach, Maurlce
Sprigs, Leslle
Woof, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pardoe, John
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)



Park, George
Stoddart, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parker, John
Strang, Gavin
Mr. A. W. Stallard and


Penhaligon, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Mr.James Tinn.


Perry, Ernest
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)



Radice, Giles
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)





NOES


Biggs-Davison, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spence, John


Budgen, Nick
Kaberry, Sir Donald



Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Knight, Mrs Jill
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Nott, John
Mr. Roger Moate and


Goodhart, Philip
Rhodes James, R.
Mr. Ian Sproat.


Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division; but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Bill, not amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)

7.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to extend for a further six months the availability of the powers provided by the emergency provisions Act. These powers were designed to meet an exceptional situation and I do not lightly ask for their renewal.
But this is not a situation of our making or choosing. The House has recognised that in the past, and will, I am sure, continue to recognise it. It is brought about by the activities of a small number of fanatics who seek to impose their views through violence, knowing that they have no democratic mandate.
If it is argued that the Act may diminish some civil rights, it can be said that it does not begin to compare with the destruction of human rights which terrorism brings. Is any human right more precious than the right to stay alive; the right to live in peace; the right to have a livelihood? These are the rights that the terrorists are taking from those who do not agree with them or will not submit to them.
I have no wish to see the emergency powers retained for any longer than is strictly necessary. The terrorists seek to show that they can bring normal life to a standstill. The greatest single weapon of the people and the Government is our ability to show that they are not succeeding and never will succeed, that violence is irrelevant and pointless and that normal society and normal standards of decency and fair play will not be destroyed in Northern Ireland.
If, therefore, I am asking today for a renewal of the present powers, it is because I regretfully believe that the need for them has not yet passed and that the situation still makes them necessary.
I last reviewed the security situation for the House in June. I said then that

we must look for the clear signs of progress in assessing the position. I predicted that we were unlikely to see anything in the way of dramatic change. Rather, as the security situation improved and restrictions eased, we should see a build-up of public confidence and a gradual return to normal living.
I believe that this is what has been happening. The overall incidence of violence and terrorist activity has decreased and other matters are increasingly occupying the attention of the community.
Since June there have been prolonged lulls in terrorist activity, alternating with sharp bursts of violence. I have no intention of indulging in false optimism, but the figures clearly indicate a continuing decline in the overall level of violence.
So far, in the period since 1st July, a total of 27 people have died as a result of terrorist activity compared with a total of 49 in the first half of 1978 and 30 in the second half of 1977. The number of shooting attacks has continued to decline since 1st July, and the overall total for the year is 30 per cent. down on that for 1977.
While bomb attacks are nearly 25 per cent. up on the previous year, mainly due to the two rounds of bombing attacks in the last few weeks, and the amounts of explosives used have risen sharply, cassette incendiary attacks are only 16 per cent. of the total for 1977.
The bombing attacks which took place in a number of country towns on and after 14th November and on 30th November were a blatant attempt by the terror-rists to panic the community, and especially the business community, into calling for a reintroduction of the old security restrictions. I am pleased to say that they have signally failed in their objective.
The Provisional IRA, having failed to achieve the slightest move towards the attainment of its goal, continues to indulge in violence for the sake of violence. In the past it has relied heavily on the tacit—and sometimes overt—support of some of the community which supports the Republican ideal. I emphasise"some"because there are many who embrace that aspiration who have consistently spoken out bravely and bitterly against the mindless terrorist campaign.
But the support of the minority community for the PIRA is dwindling, and


increasingly PIRA represents no one but itself. Its recent activities have been strongly and roundly condemned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) as well as by Mr. Austin Currie, Bishop Daly, the Roman Catholic Bishop for Derry, and Bishop Butler, the Church of Ireland Bishop of Connor.
As the police with the strong support of the Army maintain and increase their pressure, the terrorists have been forced more and more towards sporadic attacks mounted from ever less secure bases in the cities and in the remoter and sparsely populated rural areas, especially to the west of Lough Neagh and in the vicinity of the border in South Armagh, Fermanagh and West Tyrone. During most of this period, members of the security forces, on and off duty, have continued to bear the brunt of terrorist violence. Since last June, three members of the RUC and its reserve and seven members of the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment have died as the result of terrorist activity. Whilst these figures are much below those of two years ago, I regard every death as a tragic loss. I am sure that the whole House will wish me to express the sympathy of the House with the relatives of those who have died.
We recognise how much the whole community owes to those men and women of the RUC and the RUC Reserve, the Regular Army and the UDR who continue to carry out their duties, often in difficult conditions, with such courage and fortitude for the benefit of all the people in Northern Ireland. Let us not forget either that death in the course of duty has come to the prison service, the fire service and the civilian search unit.
In abhorring these senseless killings, we must not lose sight of the progress that is being made towards a more hopeful future. With the increasing localisation of terrorist activity, large areas of the Province are becoming accustomed to a relatively calm and peaceful existence. Unquestionably, there is a new sense of confidence which is not lost on visitors, whether business men or tourists.
As the House knows, I am committed to the principle of fair and effective enforcement of the law by bringing terrorists to justice through the courts. This principle has been the firm founda-

tion of our security effort since it was put forward by the Ministerial Committee on Law and Order in Northern Ireland which reported in the middle of 1976.
As two years had elapsed since then, I thought it right this summer to commission a review of the progress made in the meantime and of how best this progress could be carried forward. That review has confirmed the extent of the progress that has taken place, both in the state of security in the Province and in building up the capacity of the security forces, especially the police, to achieve further progress.
Having discussed the review with the Chief Constable and the GOC, I have concluded that the Government's present policy is the right one and that we must stick to it. I believe that all the main parties in this House agree with the essential objectives of that policy.
The Government's purpose remains the achievement of police acceptance and effectiveness throughout Northern Ireland, so that the RUC can administer the law with a minimum of Army support. One cannot isolate security policy or make valid statements about it without at the same time remembering the wider context in which it must be set. The security situation is important, but it cannot be separate from political, social and economic developments.
The security forces for their part must be always aware of the civil environment in which they operate. That is the framework within which particular decisions about specific security operations must be made.
A central feature of our policy is the evolution of the RUC as a modern and efficient police force. I think the House will agree that it is immensely encouraging to see how much progress it has been making. It has moved a very long way in a comparatively short space of time, both in building up its numerical strength and in developing its specialist skills and its overall professionalism.
The significant drop in the level of violence has meant that the number of charges brought against suspected terrorists has also been reduced. Nevertheless, 664 people charged in the first three-quarters of 1978 is a substantial figure. Of these, 46 were charged with


murder and 65 with attempted murder. The great majority of these charges relate to crimes committed very recently. In September charges were brought against one person in relation to the bombing of La Mon House restaurant, which took place in February of this year, and further investigations are continuing into that episode.
A large number of convictions has also been secured relating to offences committed a long time previously. In September alone, convictions were secured in respect of 26 murders committed two or more years previously.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman referred to arrests in connection with the murders at the La Mon House restaurant. Will he or the Minister of State say something about progress in identifying those responsible for series of murders in Newry where, I believe, an arrest was made some weeks ago?

Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to establish the facts and convey them to the right hon. Gentleman later.
The RUC is also increasing its efforts to deal with fraud and similar offences, whatever their origin may be. A specially trained fraud squad has been established. A criminal intelligence bureau of fraudulent activities has also been set up, aimed chiefly at company frauds.
In common with other police forces, the RUC tries to prevent young people from becoming involved in anti-social or criminal conduct. RUC youth liaison officers keep in touch with schools and help teachers to prepare the children for responsible and law-abiding citizenship. At present RUC youth liaison officers are involved in about 90 schools throughout the Province.
In order that the RUC should be able to meet is expanded role, my predecessor said in July 1976 that as a first objective every effort would be made to recruit up to the then establishment of 6,500. A major milestone was reached in October this year, when the strength of the regular force passed the 6,000 mark. The time is thus approaching when we shall have to consider whether present

and anticipated demands upon the force would justify increasing the strength beyond 6,500—and, if so, what that increase should be.
I am arranging for a study to be undertaken within the next few months. I cannot anticipate the results, but let me give renewed assurance that, should it establish that the present recruitment ceiling is inadequate to enable the RUC to meet its foreseeable commitment, that ceiling will be raised.
I have referred to the role of the Army in support of the RUC. I have no intention of doing the terrorists' work for them by withdrawing Army support too early. But as the terrorists are increasingly obliged to concentrate their efforts in certain parts of the Province—leaving other areas in relative peace—the Army is able to concentrate its own efforts accordingly.
A fifth resident infantry battalion was introduced into the Province in September, replacing a four-month roulement unit. This will provide greater continuity in important areas of activity.
The UDR continues to play an important and increasingly effective role in ensuring the security of the Province. The recently announced reorganisation of the company structure in a number of battalions is aimed at improving that effectiveness still further while the build-up of the permanent cadre now gives the regiment a 24-hour capability in many parts of the Province. The permanent cadre is now 2,386-strong. Recruiting has gone well.
Co-operation across the border between the two police forces continues to develop. The terrorists do not respect the border, and our joint efforts have to match that. Contacts now exist from the level of Chief Constable and Commissioner down to officers working in the divisions on the border. I am confident that they will make it progressively harder for the terrorists to take advantage of it.
Allegations have been made in some quarters that the Army is operating a new policy of shooting first and asking questions afterwards. There is no such policy. The Army in Northern Ireland operates today to the same rules as it has done for years past. The soldier is no more exempt from the law of the land than is any other citizen and he has to


be prepared to answer to the law for his actions.
In accordance with that law, in carrying out his duties he is under orders never to use more force than is necessary and never to open fire if the situation can be handled by other means. These are the yellow card rules.
It is an integral part of our policy that terrorists convicted in the courts should serve their sentences in the same way as all convicted criminals, whatever their aims and affiliations. I do not need to rehearse to the House the situation of the protestors in the Maze. They are claiming to be given special treatment in recognition that their crimes were politically motivated.
The Government's reply is still the same. Special category treatment is being phased out. All these protestors have been convicted in open court by due process of law. No one is in gaol for his political views. Men who have murdered and bombed have no right to be treated differently from any other criminals.
If the conditions in which they now live are obnoxious, they are entirely of their own making. The form of protest that they have chosen is revolting to any civilised society, and I must pay a sincere tribute to the prison officers whose dedication to duty ensures the regular cleaning and disinfecting of the filth for which these prisoners are responsible.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the activities of certain prisoners in H block, the conditions in which they live and the filth that they have created for themselves. Is he taking any steps to defeat the Republican and Provisional IRA propaganda which is at work in the United States of America among certain Congressmen? Strangely enough, I understand that the prisoners are gaining sympathy because of the conditions in H block.

Mr. Mason: Yes, I am taking all measures to combat the propaganda wave that some are trying to mount externally—that is, outside the shores of the United Kingdom. They are getting little sympathy from within the Province and within Great Britain. I am trying to combat propaganda activity, especially in the

United States of America. The visiting Congressmen who have been to Northern Ireland but who have not met any of the senior democratically elected leaders of the Province know full well that they would be rejected if they were to take up the cause of the Provisional IRA protestors.
As the security situation improves, people's attention is drawn, quite understandably, to the operation of the emergency legislation. We are as conscious of this as anyone. Parliament never intended the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 to last indefinitely, and made it subject to renewal every six months. Parliament also conferred on the Secretary of State the power to continue by an order such as we are considering today all or any of the temporary pro visions which are in force, or to provide that all or any of them will cease to be in force. We have always kept it under close review in case there was either a need for intensification or an opportunity for relaxation. The Act is not a monolith, and we have never regarded it as such.
The time will come therefore when the Government will be able to recommend to the House that the stage has been reached for one or more of the Act's provisions to be allowed to lapse as being no longer essential for the maintenance of order.
I hope that that time may not be too far off, since, when it comes, it will be because the improvement has been sustained and the return to normality is accelerating. Each provision will have to be treated on its merits. I have no intention of leaving the security forces without adequate powers to deal with the situation in which they find themselves.
Each time that I have to ask the House to renew the 1978 emergency provisions Act I consider with great care whether there is still a need for all of the provisions. I do not believe that the moment when we can begin to allow parts of the Act to lapse has yet arrived and I cannot say yet when it will arrive.
However, I can promise the House that between now and next summer I shall keep the matter under the closest review, in the light of the way in which the security situation develops, and I shall not hesitate to recommend that this or that provision should be allowed to lapse


if I judge that the situation warrants it. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is examining certain aspects of the working of emergency legislation and I shall be very willing to consider its advice.
I have devoted a large proportion of this speech to the subjects of the police and policing. I believe this is right. Just now I looked forward to the day when the Government could look positively at the possibility that one or more sections of the emergency legislation might be allowed to lapse. It is the RUC, with the help of the Army, which will take us to that point, and it is the RUC which will still have to maintain law and order when emergency legislation is no longer considered necessary in Northern Ireland. I ask those who call most strongly for the dismantling of the emergency structure to remember this. I ask them to give active and unstinted support to the efforts of the RUC to restore peace in Northern Ireland. That is what all but a tiny handful of people of Northern Ireland want and that is what they must have and what I believe they deserve.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: The emergency powers are still needed in Northern Ireland and the Opposition agree to their renewal. I thank the Secretary of State for what he has said. I agree with his priorities.
I have returned from talks with the security forces during the past two days, when I discussed all the principal aspects of security policy that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. I agree that there is now much more confidence among the people than there was a few months ago. That is to be noticed as one travels around the Province. I also saw officials concerned with the prison service. The right hon. Gentleman's comments about H block propaganda are extremely important.
Despite the latest outbreak of bombing, the population is showing great calm. Unlike some people far from the dangers of Northern Ireland—the armchair critics —the people of Northern Ireland are refusing to be trapped by IRA propaganda. I notice that they are getting down to cleaning their shops and tidying their homes in a most calm manner.
I agree that support for the Provisional IRA in the minority community is continuing to dwindle. I do not often find myself in agreement with The Irish Times, but its statement this week that the Provos have nothing to say to the people of the North is excellent. I was glad to read that.
The appraisal given to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and myself in the middle of June that the terrorists are equipped for a long struggle has been sadly justified. We are seeing that now. During my two-day visit it became clear to me that relentless pressure must be retained on all terrorist groups throughout the next 12 months to keep them on the run. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that he may have to consider the nature of the emergency legislation in future, but relentless pressure must be the policy.
Some solution must also be found to the problem of the godfathers of terrorism—we have heard a good deal about their operations in the last two days—and how they should be brought before the courts. This still remains a major problem. The Secretary of State and the House will know to whom I am referring. The bombings of the last two days have been coordinated. The source of supply is obviously a new bomb factory. The sooner that is identified and neutralised, the better it will be for everyone.
It is obvious that the car bomb has returned to the scene. By the end of 1978, the number of bombs may well be as large as in 1977. On the other hand, the Secretary of State quite rightly said that the number of Army and civilian deaths has been kept down, presumably as a result of the great success of the security forces in catching terrorists during 1977. But he is right to tell the House that every death is tragic, and I pay the same tribute to all those who have so well served the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The security forces to whom I spoke clearly do not favour a general review or reappraisal of the fundamental elements of the existing policy, in response to the recent increase in violence. They are entirely in favour of the present policy of giving the main role to the RUC. The Army evidently does not wish to see soldiers acting as policemen again, or showing a considerable uniformed


presence in the streets of the Province, and I entirely agree with that. The RUC is obviously ready, willing and able to go on enlarging its role, although I was told in Belfast of the shortage of men available for some routine work. I was glad, therefore, to hear the Secretary of State mention the question of establishment and a possible increase beyond 6,500, because this may be necessary for routine duties.
I had the pleasure of visiting the additional resident battalion of the Green Howards in October. I was very much impressed by them. I think that their policy is right and I hope that there will be another resident battalion in Northern Ireland before long.
Everyone to whom I spoke, including shopkeepers, felt that the security barriers should not be hastily re-erected, particularly in the absence of any significant demand for them by the traders and ordinary members of the public. A sudden re-erection of barriers would be greeted by the terrorists as a victory for them.
The security forces lay great emphasis on the cumulative effects of their steady pressure on the terrorists. The word they use is"attrition ". I do not like that word very much but I think it describes the only possible security policy at the present time. It is a question of wearing down the terrorist groups operating in Northern Ireland.
I now turn to what I regard as the most important problem today in Northern Ireland—that of the Maze and the propaganda protest campaign being conducted by the prisoners there. It is very noticeable, in referring to support within the minority community, that there are far fewer sympathisers than there would have been a few years ago. All of us here who are concerned with Northern Ireland affairs will remember that well. But we need some counter-propaganda, and the question is how this should be undertaken.
There is no doubt that the object of the operation is to get at sympathisers in the United States of America, because funds for the IRA are drying up. I have had occasion to discuss this on television quite recently. I hope that members of the Government will take part in discussions on television on the subject, because the Opposition thoroughly sup-

port the Government in what they are doing in standing firm against the protest. It would be a good idea if both Government and Opposition were to be seen standing together on those occasions so that viewers could realise this. I entirely agree with what the Secretary of State has said in the past, but I think that more public understanding of this would be a good thing.
The greatest fillip which could be given to the IRA at this stage would be any concession to the current filthy protest campaign which it is carrying out in the prison. Any weakening would, above all, destroy the morale of the Province's 2,400 prison officers. This was pointed out to me yesterday by the Secretary of State's own Department. I was very much impressed by what was told to me in no uncertain terms by the officials to whom we spoke. We have good reason, I believe, for making this attitude clear outside the House.
During the protest, prison officers in the three H blocks have had to endure enormous provocation from the protestors, as well as undertaking regular cleaning operations in order to prevent an outbreak of disease. Each cell is cleaned once every three weeks or so, I understand. I should like the Government—the Opposition will assist them—to declare their absolute determination to stand firm in the face of this blackmail, in order to convince the prison officials that their work has not been in vain. I know that this was the view of Mr. Albert Miles, the murdered deputy prison governor. Some Young Conservatives went over to see him just before he was murdered. They told me that he had said to them that any face-saving formula would be seen as an insult to the memory of his six colleagues in the prison service who had been killed. He was a fine man and, sadly, he was killed very shortly after he made that statement to those young people.
The propaganda has to be met and defeated. The photographs of the facilities available in the prison should be widely circulated, as they are of considerable interest. There are education and recreation facilities which the protestors are denying themselves by turning their cells into pigsties. A good deal more use could be made of the photographs. showing the facilities and the nature


of the accommodation, particularly among British officials abroad. They ought to be in possession of the facts.
I know that our ambassador in Washington has made a statement, and I welcome it, but I hope that a more positive message will be given from Government sources throughout the world. The propaganda is being spread throughout the world. It is to be found not only in the United States but in Europe and in the Soviet Union. According to the propaganda, the prisoners are suffering ill treatment from the prison authorities and not from their own actions.
Those are the most important points that I encountered during my short visit to Northern Ireland. We agree with the order and its renewal, and will give the Government our full support.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. William Craig: The Ulster people have had to endure almost 10 years of terrorism, and by any standards that is an appalling record of government and law-keeping. It is sad to have to concede this evening that there is still the need for strong security policies and the necessary law to give effect to those policies.
It would be very wrong of us, even though we may feel frustrated and wearied by these problems, to place any difficulties in the way of restoring peace, stability, law and order in Northern Ireland. I complain about having had to endure this for 10 years, but I do not want the complaint to be interpreted as meaning that I do not recognise the enormous progress that has been made in restoring effective law and order in Northern Ireland. Indeed, this is the first occasion on which I can be so forthcoming in recognising the progress that has been made.
But in recognising this progress I do not want the Secretary of State and his colleagues to assume that they can adopt a complacent attitude or feel that the problems are almost over, because we do not believe that they are over. We support the renewal this evening of the emergency provisions, but we are not concinced that that in itself is enough. We feel that, before the last shot can be said to have been fired, much more will have

to be done by the security forces, and it may be necessary to look at the entire legal apparatus to enable the security forces to complete the job.
The statistics that the Secretary of State has quoted are impressive and one cannot argue about them, but behind those statistics there is a lot of misery and much economic loss that we cannot ignore. We sometimes dismiss these IRA attacks as the acts of madmen, but there is a strange cunning in these acts of madness. As an example of what I mean I cite their reckless placing of a bomb on the shoppers' train from Dublin to Belfast. That had a very effective economic consequence. It was another blow at the commercial life of Belfast.
I do not believe that the terrorists were oblivious to what they were doing. What they were oblivious to was the possible cost in human lives. This is the awful dilemma that we face. We must protect our economy and our people. We cannot afford to play politics or be curtailed by the consideration of what is good in terms of a propaganda war. People in Northern Ireland want to feel that everything that can be done within the legal framework is being done to defeat the IRA terrorists.
The most significant sign of progress—here I heartily join with the Secretary of State—is the growth in the effectiveness of the RUC. Every law-abiding citizen in Northern Ireland rejoices at this, and we are now pleased that the Government are much more realistic and practical in their approach to the policing of the Province. It is a sad matter of record that it was the Government who undermined the effectiveness of policing in Northern Ireland.
We rejoice that we are no longer concerned with politics when it comes to having an effective police force in Northern Ireland. The RUC has, against great odds, established itself in most parts of the community as a force that can be regarded with trust and with pride. I commend the Secretary of State for the speedy way in which he has improved the quality of equipment that is now available to the RUC and for ensuring the increased mobility of the force. However, I plead with him not to rest in his labours because much still needs to be done in providing additional vehicles and


radio communications and in instituting a reappraisal of the armaments requirements of the RUC.
I am confident that now that the RUC is seen to be in a position to do its job there will be no difficulty in attracting additional recruits. I have no doubts when I say that I believe the force needs to be increased in strength to 8,500—the experts will tell us the exact number—because 6,500 is not enough even to deal with the normal situation in the Province.
The task of crowd control at football matches or other great public gatherings is sufficient to demonstrate the problem faced by the RUC. I am always jealous of the capacity of London's Metropolitan Police to muster, without any sense of emergency, large numbers of policemen to deal with great public gatherings. Dealing with such occasions in Northern Ireland always presents a crisis if there is any risk of a breach of the rule of law.
So it is a matter of urgency to build up the RUC and to look at the recruitment of officer material for the force. A force is only as good as its leadership. I talk about leadership not only from the top but at every level in the force. There could be introduced with advantage special training and educational courses for recruits with officer potential in the RUC. There is one weakness in the development of the police as the prime law and order force in Northern Ireland, and that is the lack of adequate reserve power to deal with emergencies. I am talking about the day—I hope it will soon arrive—when we do not have to call upon the Army as an aid to civil authority.
I think that the time has come to address our minds to the problems that will arise when that day comes. The Ulster Defence Regiment is a fine force, doing a wonderful job, but it has no long-term role in the policing of the Province. It is a regiment of the Army, and I believe that we should consider whether its character should be changed so that it can be an auxiliary force of the police rather than of the Army.
Unless we face this fact, it is unreal to talk about establishing, once and for all, the primacy of the police in Northern Ireland. I should, however, like to pay tribute to the work that the volunteers in the regiment have done. I am in no way critical of the men or the job they

are doing, but as organised now it does not fit into the pattern of the police organisation in the future. One further sign of progress is the nature of the Army's job in the Province. No longer is it performing the original absurd role projected for it of forming some sort of United Nations peace-keeping force. The Army can now be seen for what it is. It is there to help the civil authorities, and that is a barometer of real progress. I think that we should mark that up.
What I want to say about the Army concerns the matter of reviewing the strength of the Regular garrison. It is all too easy for people who are fearful of the situation to be disturbed by routine troop movements. I should like to see the matter more clearly spelt out. What is the size of the Regular garrison normally stationed in Northern Ireland? Once that is established, and once there is a formula for relating that size to the needs of the Province, there will be less risk of would-be politicians distorting the picture when we have normal times.
I cannot develop my argument without referring to the recent spate of bombings. It will be argued by the IRA and others that this indicates that there has been no progress in curtailing the terrorists. That is nonsense. I think that the recent bombings are illuminating, because it is clear to me that, for the first time in this long decade of violence, the IRA is more and more being pushed over the border. The Irish Republic is a safer place for them than Northern Ireland. Belfast is no longer in the front line, as far as we can see. It is the towns and targets more convenient to the border that are now in the front line.
This situation causes me some concern —though I welcome and accept the Secretary of State's assurances that there is growing co-operation between the two police forces in the island—because I am not happy that enough is being done in the Irish Republic to curtail the IRA. It is an alarming fact that over the past 12 months armed robberies in the Republic have netted about £3 million to £4 million. I do not think it is reckless to speculate that the great bulk of that money has gone into the coffers of people associated with the IRA. I am sure that not all of that money is used for the good of the cause—probably it is helping some of the members of that organisation rather


than the cause—but some of it is, I am sure, going to aid the cause.
That sort of money concerns me. No matter how good the international community may be in helping to control terrorism, anyone who can spend millions of pounds can buy assassins and weapons. There is a duty on the Government of the Irish Republic to see that the law is more effectively enforced in the Republic and that these armed robberies, which threaten all of us, are brought to a speedy end.
We have talked long about better cooperation with the Irish Government. At the end of the day we come to one inevitable conclusion: there will be no progress until the Government of the Republic not only take action in their own courts but adopt a policy of extradition. That in itself—the very act of subscribing to the convention for extradition—would be a massive deterrent, preventing many young people in the Republic from being sucked into something which is wholly evil and has nothing to do with a patriotic cause.
That would certainly lessen the chances of the Republic being used as a hideout or haven for terrorists on the run. Unfortunately, at the moment, they seem to find this far too easy. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to make further representations to the Government in Dublin to shoulder their obligations in the name not only of law and order but of humanity, and to plead once more for extradition between the two countries.
In the face of the renewed activity in Northern Ireland, we must consider what lessons can be learnt. It is well known that Gerry Adams, not long released from prison, is again playing a leading part in the IRA's campaign. It is a source of worry and concern to those who have done so much to get on top of the IRA that the organisation should be rejuvenated from time to time by the return of leadership of this capacity.
That leads me to ask: are the sentences adequate for the situation in which we live? I do not believe that they are. A new approach needs to be taken to sentencing. Anyone convicted of an offence motivated by terrorism should receive a sentence for the duration of the campaign of terrorism or a fixed term of years, whichever is the longer.

Mr. Stan Thorne: What is there in the Northern Ireland situation which suggests to the right hon. Gentleman that if it were possible to keep in gaol those guilty of terrorism there would not be young people aged from 14 to 17 anxious to take up the cudgels?

Mr. Craig: I do not think that many young people are anxious to take up the cudgels. Many are being tricked and trapped into a situation which they find it difficult to get out of. When I deal later with the IRA's concept of humanity I might cite some examples of how young people, once ensnared, find it difficult to get out again.
I was going to say that, as I read the situation—I know that I am not alone in this interpretation—it is only a matter of time until a further serious onslaught is made against the personnel of the RUC. We therefore have a duty to frame the law to provide the maximum protection for the security forces—not just the law enforcement agencies but the prison service as well.
The time has come to reconsider the introduction of the death penalty for the murder of a member of the security forces or the prison service. I do not accept that it has no deterrent value. It has a real deterrent value. The Secretary of State may know about the prisoner who was confined to one of Her Majesty's prisons and was in danger of losing his life, on the instruction of an illegal organisation. That organisation told a prisoner who was already confined on four murder raps to eliminate the newly-confined prisoner. The man had nothing to lose and a lot to gain, since the IRA had told him"If you do this job for us, we shall see that your wife and children receive added benefits."
Thankfully, the prison service has so far avoided such a crime being carried out within its confines, but this shows what happens when a man has nothing more to lose. The death penalty should be considered.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I am not in full accord with the right hon. Gentleman and give no support to his call for the return of the death penalty, but is he aware that the case that he has illustrated happened on the other side of the political and religious divide and that


I had to ring up the Minister of State to ask him to ensure that a loyalist prisoner would not be taken to the Maze, where he was in danger of being killed by his former UVF associates?

Mr. Craig: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the sort of situation that I fear might arise from time to time in our prisons. I was not aware that he had been of assistance in the matter, and I am grateful that he was prepared to help in that direction.
I should like to refer to some of the consequences of these emergency provisions in terms of the ill-informed propaganda warfare which is now being waged. Some would have us believe that because of these provisions there is no due process of law in Northern Ireland. That is a wilful falsehood. There is fair trial in Northern Ireland. The absence of a jury, though regrettable, does not mean that the judiciary cannot be relied upon and trusted. The quality of justice administered by our courts is as high as one can find anywhere. Indeed, as a lawyer, I sometimes think that if my future were at risk I would rather have it decided by two or three judges than by a jury of 12.
In principle, we should like to see trial by jury restored, but against the background of intimidation and the risk of losing one's life it is unrealistic to ask for that. But its absence does not indicate a lack of proper judicial process. All who are convicted are convicted on evidence which has been well and truly tested.
I join the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in asking the Secretary of State to stand firm on the Government's decision about special category status and to attack those who seek to promote its restoration. The Government's case is sound and should not go by default. I was horrified by the"Nationwide"television programme last night. The hon. Member for Abingdon did the best he could in restricted circumstances, but that programme was ill advised and inaccurate in many respects, showing a complete lack of knowledge of how a prison works.
I could not believe my eyes or ears when I saw a mother being interviewed while on her way, allegedly, to visit her son who was on the blanket. The inter-

viewer was putting words into her mouth. She did not know whether she would be able to see her son or, if she did. whether he would be given time to clean himself up. If he was in a dirty condition, that was entirely his own decision.
What did not come out in that interview was that prisoners who rebel against the prison rules lose their privileges:stage by stage as punishment for their continued rebellion against authority. Last night's programme gave the impression —I believe deliberately—that privileges were being withdrawn for political reasons rathen than for the proper administration of the prison. The hon. Member for Abingdon sail all that needed to be said on that issue.
There can be no yielding to demands for special privileges for criminals of this nature. They are common criminals. The only special thing about them is the extent of their degradation. Far from getting privileges, they merit the full severity which can be administered under the law. The great majority of people in Northern Ireland will support the Government in their determination to ensure that neither politics nor terrorist pressure shall lead them into creating unfair privileges for such criminals. It was a great mistake that special category status was ever introduced. I suppose that it was brought in because of the treatment that was necessary for those who were interned without trial. But it was a great mistake. A big price has been paid for it, and an even bigger price would be paid if there were any question of a compromise. It would be a betrayal not only of the prison service but of all law-abiding people in Northern Ireland.
I hope that the Government will use all the organs of government to ensure that the truth is known, and I trust that the BBC will not again be given the opportunity to put such a one-sided, distorted picture before viewers in the United Kingdom.
As has been said, we are dealing with people who have no comprehension of the meaning of humanity. It sickens me to hear pleas being made on their behalf on the ground that they deserve special treatment in the name of humanity. These people indiscriminately placed bombs in public places, not caring who or wits people were killed. Have we forgotten


the horrible bomb in the Abercorn restaurant and in many other public places? The dead may be buried, but those who loved and cared for them have not forgotten. There are people living today who are badly mutilated. They have a very poor opinion of IRA humanity.
The IRA attemps to justify the bombings and hoax bombings by going through the process of giving due and timely warnings when it suits it. Such warnings should not be regarded as acts of humanity. The warnings have been used to develop a system of disruption almost as massive and destructive as the bombs themselves.
If anyone has any doubt about the character of these criminals, he should consider how they treat their comrades. Even a minor offence can result in the offender having a bullet in the knee. They think nothing of inflicting capital punishment as a penalty. If, in the exercise of their own law, they are prepared to hand out such punishments, they have a distorted sense of values if they claim special privileges for themselevs.
I am not attempting to claim that two wrongs make a right. I am merely emphasising that, by criminal standards, these criminals are the worst in our society and do not merit any special sympathy or treatment. If prison conditions are intolerable for them, they are the result of their own actions.
Compromises of a dangerous kind have largely been responsible for the people of Northern Ireland suffering for 10 years. The sign of progress today is that fundamental values and standards of right and wrong are no longer to be compromised. The RUC, the Army and many people are willing to lay down their lives to see that those standards are maintained. Far be it for us in politics to jeopardise what they stand for.
I have no doubt that all my colleagues will support the renewal of these provisions on the basis that the Government will continue to exert themselves to bring peace and harmony to our country.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Many of us absolutely condemn the IRA for these dreadful atrocities. But should not the right hon. Gentleman mention and condemn the brutal

killings by the paramilitaries who count themselves to be on the other side? Should we not make it clear that, from whichever side terrorism, brutality and killing may come, we condemn the groupings which do it? I think it is absolutely necessary to put on record that we are totally against terrorism from both sides.

Mr. Craig: I do not dispute what the hon. Gentleman has said. I only hope that he is not trying to minimise the activities of the IRA. The IRA brought about this situation and, unhappily, produced this reaction. I agree that brutal murders by terrorists on either side are to be condemned. Terrorism cannot be justified in a democracy when people have the right to decide their future by the ballot box. The ballot box rather than the bullet is to be preferred.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Whatever else may be deduced about the wave of Provisional bombing—I accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said about how the IRA has suffered during the past two years—it patently does not represent the work of a few groups of ill-disciplined, politically motivated criminals or of isolated individuals within the Provisional IRA trying to put a brave face on the difficulty that that organisation has experienced in the past year in keeping up the momentum of the war. To that extent, it presents us with a more worrying set of circumstances than virtually anything we have had to face since Her Majesty the Queen visited Northern Ireland 18 months ago.
This current phase, which is now entering its fourth week, has all the hallmarks of detailed planning and organisation. It exhibits a degree of co-ordination and discipline which clearly tells us that the terrorists have—we hope only temporarily —regained the initiative. There is no point in turning a blind eye and saying that we should not acknowledge it because we are doing our work.
The widespread nature of the bombing also illustrates an ease of movement of equipment and explosives throughout the Province. That is worrying in the extreme and demands that far greater efforts be made in checking and monitoring people and vehicles. From my personal experience in moving about Northern Ireland, I


have the feeling that road checking is not being pursued with the same vigour, or with the same resources, as was the case in the past.
Detailed planning and co-ordination demands planners and organisers—" the godfathers ", as they were described by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). In a debate on security on 6th March I said:
 These people form the vital component, just like the detonators in the bombs, the volunteers and the materials for terrorism which will always be available in Northern Ireland if One has the money for the materials and the history to generate the volunteers. So long as these men are at large, so long will the campaign continue."—[Official Report, 6th March 1978; Vol. 945, col. 1063.]
On that occasion I asked the Secretary of State to consider whether the law could be strengthened to deal with these people. I join with those hon. Members who have asked him to consider whether the law needs strengthening to take these people out of our society.
Another potential source of assistance and advice, quite apart from recruits, comes from among the people who are presently being released from prison on completion of 50 per cent. of their sentences. There must be people qualifying for remission as of now who six or seven years ago were found guilty of some very serious terrorist offences which at the time merited sentences of 10, 12 or 14 years. These were people who bombed and murdered. They were guilty of gross offences. They are now becoming available to the terrorists.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the movements and activities of these people, who have been only conditionally released, are being adequately monitored? Just as important, is he now able to assure us, since he was not earlier this year, that if and when they are again apprehended and brought before the courts, the attention of the courts will be drawn in every instance to the fact that a sizeable proportion of their original sentences are to be served?
I find it incomprehensible that during the past six or seven months the courts in Northern Ireland have released people on bail and have given suspended sentences to people who have been guilty of terrorist offences. I do not see how someone caught in possession of a weapon or

bomb-making material, or who is an accessory to a terrorist offence, can be given a suspended sentence.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said, now is not the time for softness. Like him, I do not believe that we can consider terrorism in Northern Ireland without taking into account the role of the Irish Republic. I know that some people think that I have a bee in my bonnet about the Irish Republic, but I share a common land frontier in my constituency with it, and I am seriously concerned about what is happening there.
Despite what the Minister of State told me three weeks ago about the role of the Irish Republic, it is quite obvious that during the past few weeks many of the bombs and other materials have been run into the Province from Eire. This is evidenced not only by arrests in Northern Ireland but also by the good work of the civic guards in the Republic, particularly in county Donegal, where the civic guards probably saved Londonderry from a blitz during the past few weeks.
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is a bomb factory in the Republic? Do the security forces know that or suspect it? Do the commercial explosives and detonators which are now used in the bombs originate in the. Republic? Do the various fertiliser mixes being used in car bombs originate in the Republic? Is it true that the home-made detonators which are now used in these bombs are being made in the Republic with professional advice and assistance?
A substantial number of devices have been defused. We must pay tribute to those professionals who have done this very dangerous work and who over the past few weeks have saved Northern Ireland from a lot more damage. When those bombs were defused and examined, a lot of information must have been made available.
I should now like to refer briefly to my constituency and to a number of disquieting incidents which have occurred there in recent times, which illustrate to me and my constituents that there is a growing confidence in the terrorist fraternity. I refer particularly to the fact that large groups of armed men have been able to roam around the border areas of


South Armagh, crossing the border from time to time, abducting people, questioning them and in at least one instance beating them up. They made no attempt to conceal their presence or the weapons which they carried. They have acted in this brazen fashion, and are obviously confident that they will not be apprehended.

Mr. John Dunlop: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is something of an anomaly that a short time ago a small unit of the special patrol group of the police strayed across the border at Clady in county Tyrone—a notorious Republican area—and were shortly detected by the army of the Republic and just as promptly turned back across the border? If the army of the Republic is so proficient in detecting an innocent excursion such as that, how is it that these other movements to which my hon. Friend has referred seem to go undetected, and that the IRA's free movement across the border continues unhindered?

Mr. McCusker: I hope that the good work which has been done in parts of Donegal will be seen operating across the border in county Tyrone and county Armagh. As to the incidents to which I referred, that is not happening. But I am confident that those people would not behave in that fashion if the SAS was operating in South Armagh in the strength in which it was operating a few years ago. I hope that the Secretary of State and others will bear that in mind.
I am convinced that these public demonstrations are taking place to undermine the confidence of the public in the Government's determination to defeat the terrorists. If those people simply wanted to abduct someone and question him, they had no need to do it in the brazen, public fashion in which they did it. I believe that it was done in that way for effect.
Although the statistics for South Armagh are improving, they are still disconcerting. This year alone—and these are the forgotten people, many of whom come from the mainland of the United Kingdom—four Regular soldiers and one UDR man have been killed in South Armagh. Three civilians, two of them innocent Roman Catholics who were executed by the IRA, have been killed, as

have two policemen. That is almost a dozen people killed in that small area of my constituency. That did not happen in 1977 when the full rigours of the covert activities of the SAS operated there.
Those are appalling figures. If they were repeated throughout the Province, it would represent a death rate comparable with the worst years of the troubles. I appreciate that the SAS is a finite military resource, but I can think of no better task on which it could be deployed. It is not unreasonable to suggest that at least some of the stimulus for the attacks is caused by the Government taking action to reinforce Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom.
Tonight's message to the terrorists should be"Forget your campaign of murder and destruction. It has had the effect only of bringing about what you least desire. You cannot bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. You cannot bomb Northern Ireland into a united Ireland. You cannot win." The steadfastness of the Northern Ireland community has been shown by its refusal to be panicked by the recent outrages. That reinforces my view.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Stan Thorne: My contribution will be in the form of a question which is at the root of what we are considering. Most of us are familiar with Irish history. We are well aware of the violence that has been part of the Irish problem for many years. One knows about the Easter Rising and many other occasions in Irish history when attempts have been made to solve the political problems with violence.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) referred to democracy. Most Northern Irish people would like to conform to a system of democracy. It is out of the question to say that a democracy exists when some sections of a community are deprived of certain human rights. We are talking of a section of the community which sought to use the ballot box and to argue for equal rights in a variety of spheres. It was tempted by Governments and political parties to believe that they intended to carry out power sharing. Flow does that community feel when it finds that there is no such intention?
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who is not in the


Chamber today, has made it clear on a number of occasions that there is to be no power sharing as long as he is alive. The Government's position is clear. The Government believe that power sharing in Northern Ireland is essential if a peaceful community is to be created. That has been said from the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.

Mr. Dunlop: Does the hon. Member recall the power sharing Executive of 1974? A party which gained about 22 per cent. of the total vote handled 40 per cent. of government. That was good power sharing.
During that time violence did not decrease but escalated. More people were killed and more damage was done during the lifetime of the power sharing Executive than at any other time. That so-called democracy is no solution to the violence. The violence will continue. The IRA has no time for that type of power sharing. Patently, it wants to destroy both Governments, North and South, and institute a one-party, Marxist form of government for the whole of Ireland. That is its goal.

Mr. Thorne: Obviously the hon. Member's knowledge of the IRA's political position is better than mine. I was not aware that the IRA was a Marxist organisation intent upon establishing a Marxist form of government. But I agree that there are different interpretations of its aim.
The hon. Member seems to be saying that if normality is restored in Northern Ireland we would have power sharing and establish civil rights.

Mr. Powell: Try it here first.

Mr. Thorne: I accept that there are limitations on civil rights in the United Kingdom. I did not vote for the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which the Opposition did. Some of my constituents have been subjected to that Act and their rights have, to some degree, been invaded.
As I was saying, if normality were restored, power sharing and the establishment of human rights would follow, it is said. But statements from Ulster Unionist Members give the lie to that suggestion.

Mr. Craig: I do not think that the hon. Member should waste the time of the House in making an assumption that has

no meaning. The essence of democracy is that the people elect the Government of their choice, and we do not propose to depart from that.

Mr. Thorne: With due respect, it is argued that we have a democracy in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Powell: But we have no power sharing.

Mr. Thorne: We have a democracy in the United Kingdom with a Government in power at present for which only 27 per cent. of the electorate voted.
That may be the right hon. Gentleman's conception of democracy, but it is not mine. If we are to have an argument about democracy, that is all very well, but I think that Mr. Deputy Speaker would tend to argue about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has made some reference to my coming into the Chair. Perhaps he could assist me. I understand that what we are discussing is the desirability of continuing in force the temporary provisions of the Act. It seems to me as though we are having a general debate on the future and the past and on what the Government have been doing. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with the offences that are enumerated in the Act.

Mr. Thorne: I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I lost my way in attempting to take up one or two of the points made by Opposition Members which were apparently in order at the time they were made, particular reference having been made to democracy in Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that we are right to test the idea that, normality having been restored, we could expect the sort of things to which I have just been referring. The question then follows—this is why we are discussing the order, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are absolutely right: do emergency powers assist us to create the normality that we need in Northern Ireland as a preliminary to the democratic traditions to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? As I said at the beginning, for me that is the key question, and the only question.
What is the evidence? Emergency powers have been in existence in Northern Ireland for some years. We have


heard from the Secretary of State that we are winning. I remember a very recent speech in which he said"We are winning." Someone over in Northern Ireland must have heard him, unfortunately. Also, someone may have heard what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East said earlier about there being no bombings in Belfast. I hope that there will be no reaction to that.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I hope to goodness that they were not listening.

Mr. McCusker: Does the hon. MemMember for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) really think that we or the IRA are so naive as to require the Secretary of State or anyone else to jibe them into bombing? They will bomb and continue to bomb and destroy without any excuse from us.

Mr. Thorne: That is a very helpful observation relating to the point that I was making. If that is the case, how can we establish that emergency powers are in any way effective in preventing such a situation?
I should like to put the argument the other way. Is it not just possible that by ending emergency powers we can begin to get a response towards bringing an end to the continuous reign of violence in Northern Ireland? The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is convinced that that would not be the case. I am not so convinced. It is because I am not so convinced that I have some difficulty in accepting this order. It is a matter for the Government to satisfy us that this continuance of the order will contribute to the restoration of the normality in Northern Ireland which we all seek.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) indicated earlier, no one on the Labour Benches is prepared to give any support or sustenance to the Provisionals or to the UVF. All too often, some Opposition Members seem to have certain preferences when they speak in this House. Condemning the Provos is one thing. Condemning the UVF is something about which we hear very little. It seems to me that that situation is no accident.
I condemn both organisations and others for perpetuating the violence. The Government should grasp the nettle. They should say"We shall not renew the emergency powers but will rely on the people of Northern Ireland to reach a peaceful solution." But in so doing we have to address ourselves to precisely those points that hon. Members opposite wish to forget—power sharing and the establishment of human rights for all sections of the Northern Ireland people. No other way is possible to solve the crisis in that unhappy land.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) took us back to the Easter Rising. At that time, a republic was proclaimed from the steps of the Post Office in Dublin. It is only the Government that was then proclaimed that the Irish Republican Army and its political wing, Sinn Fein, recognised as a legitimate Government in the island of Ireland. The House may be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his historical allusion because it brings out clearly the point that the IRA is the enemy both of the United Kingdom and of the Republic of Ireland. It rejects the system of constitutional democracy that exists on both sides of the Irish border.
From time to time we make our complaints about certain weaknesses that we see in the policy of the Irish Government in endeavouring to suppress terrorism. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) referred—I do not think that he needed to say that it was a bee in his bonnet—to what we have long said about the failure of the Irish Government to extradite terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or fugitive terrorists, and to sign the European convention for the suppression of terrorism. We have these complaints, but we should also acknowledge with gratitude the great efforts that the Garda Siochana makes in co-operation with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and it is a fact that we should always bear in mind that the IRA is our common enemy.
I do not like this order. It is a painful necessity. But those who will the end of security must will the means. Those who want to restore peace and order must be prepared to confer large powers


upon the Secretary of State and the security forces. But, because we confer those large powers, we must, and the House always wants to be vigilant for the rights and liberties of the subject.
The hon. Member for Armagh referred to the courts. I want to say a word about the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. The office of the independent Director of Public Prosecutions was introduced in 1972. I do not accept a large part of the Amnesty International report of June this year, which made some grave allegations against police officers. So far as I know—perhaps the Minister of State can tell us something about the matter —Amnesty International has not been able to substantiate them.
However, that is not what I want to address myself to at present. I want to speak about something which causes me concern and I believe will cause all hon. Members concern. I refer to the delays, which I am told are lengthening, in bringing accused persons to trial. There is much said on this score which probably is not accurate. When I made a courtesy call on the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh soon after his enthronement, practically the only political matter he raised with me was the number of persons in the women's prison there who, he said, had been there without trial for an excessive period. I put the matter to the Northern Ireland Office, which was able to give me certain reassurance.
Nevertheless, the Amnesty International report says that delays of as much as 14 months have been reported and that delays of a year are common. The report suggests that the usual delay is six months. That may or may not be correct. There may have been an improvement since June, but I should be grateful if the Secretary of State or another Northern Ireland Minister would make it his business to consult the Attorney-General, who is also Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, to see whether there is something that gives cause for concern.
There can be many reasons for delay. Sometimes the delay can be on the part of the police. We realise the heavy burdens that the Royal Ulster Constabulary carries. There may be a shortage of experienced officers. Witnesses may be intimidated. There may be difficulty in

arresting other joint offenders. There may be allegations against investigating officers. There are all kinds of reasons for delay, but it is not something that the House can lightly accept.
We should be vigilant for the rights and liberties of the subject, and we should also be vigilant and concerned for the efficiency and well-being of the security forces, without whom, as the Secretary of State said, no one in Northern Ireland would be able to enjoy the most important human right—the right to live peaceably with his neighbour. Incidentally, I was very glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army was here earlier, because I want to say something about him in a moment. We should be sure that the only forces of the Crown that are actively engaged against an enemy, a ruthless enemy, receive all the equipment they need in good time.
I wonder how many police lives were lost because of the delay in providing the Royal Ulster Constabulary with armoured Land Rovers. There was delay because of industrial trouble at what was then called British Leyland. If industrial trouble was holding up vehicles needed to save the lives of members of the security forces or protect them from injury, an appeal should have been made to management and workpeople not to allow an industrial dispute to interfere with supplying the RUC. I believe that there would have been a response.
I want now to raise what may seem a more trivial matter as regards supplying the security forces with what they need, but it will not seem trivial to those of my hon. Friends who have been out with the Ulster Defence Regiment in the cold and damp, whether on the border or in the Mourne mountains. I refer to combat gloves, a matter that I raised in the Army debate in May, when I asked the Government to give an undertaking that the combat gloves issued to the Regular Army in Northern Ireland would also be made available to the active ranks of the UDR by the onset of winter. I received a courteous letter from the Under-Secretary, in which he confirmed that it was the intention of the Ministry of Defence to provide the gloves as I had asked and that action was already under way. He said:
Arrangements have already been made to ensure that the needs of the regular element of the UDR will be fully met for this winter.


I emphasise"the Regular element ". He went on to say that it would not be possible to provide them to part-time members of the UDR possibly until the winter of 1979–80:
 My Department is currently examining what additional production capacity might be made available but I would not wish to raise false hopes that part-time members of the UDR will receive their gloves earlier than is currently forecast.
I wrote back to the Minister and suggested that to get people to make the gloves might be a more useful piece of job creation than some of the others of which one could think. I am afraid that the Under-Secretary of State took that rather too seriously. He replied to me on 25th October, saying that
 a new job creation scheme would not help to meet our immediate requirement for combat gloves more quickly.
He then gave me a very interesting discourse on leather cutting and the four-year apprenticeship required for a cutter and said:
 Even the more simple task of sewing the gloves together can require up to 10 months' training.
He went on to reflect upon the difficulty of recruiting young people to the trade. But, he said:
 One of the main suppliers of combat gloves is at present, with some Government assistance, training eight young people for full-time employment with the firm. The combat glove is a high quality article "—
undoubtedly it is—
 requiring considerable skills in manufacture…Our current orders, together with normal commercial work, will absorb the capacity of our two main suppliers until March 1979.
He said that the Department was searching for additional manufacturing capacity and was having great difficulty.
I shall not detain the House any longer with complaints about the supply of combat gloves.

Mr, Litterick: Oh!

Mr. Biggs-Davison: If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) would like to go out with a unit of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the damp and cold and try to handle his weapon, assuming that he were given one, he would know that this apparent

triviality is a matter which should be of concern to this House. I shall not weary the House any further with this correspondence. However, this does not show the proper sense of urgency in supplying Her Majesty's Forces in Northern Ireland with what they need to defeat the terrorists.
There are two other matters of concern in the Ulster Defence Regiment to which I wish to refer. There is some doubt whether it is really necessary to lay it down that no one shall serve in the regiment after the age of 55 unless he receives an annual extension, to a maximum age of 60, and that it is in the interests of the regiment.
There are perhaps right hon. and hon. Members, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) or even me, who if we were in a position to do so might be able to give service in the Ulster Defence Regiment and would not be too old for that. It is often the case that older people make up in maturity what they may lack in agility. In an irregular locally-recruited regiment there must be many tasks which could be performed by people older than 65 even, and I should have thought that flexibility should prevail in this respect.
The other matter which gave some concern arose from the rumours—I suppose they are not true—that there would be an amalgamation of battalions. Since the report was made by the Army's Inspectorate of Establishments, I gather that there has been some merging of companies. However, there was considerable alarm in the UDR lest there be amalgamations which might tend to destroy important local associations. It is the local character of a unit of this kind which is most valuable.
I agree with the Secretary of State that members of the Provisional IRA recognise no one but themselves, and that they seek power from the barrel of a gun because they know from experience that Sinn Fein stands little or no chance in democratic elections
.
The Secretary of State said that the Provisional IRA's atrocities had been condemned by the SDLP. He also quoted the Roman Catholic Bishop of Derry, Dr. Edward Daly, who spoke of the weariness of the Catholic—and, indeed,


the whole—community in Northern Ireland of the Provincial IRA campaign. Bishop Daly said:
 It is long past the time when those who promote and plan this campaign should realise this, and bring an end to the distress and heartbreak they have inflicted on the people of the North, Catholic and Protestant.
Dr. Daly began his priesthood at Castlederg, which has suffered terribly in recent times. He spoke of the cruel and ruthless bombers and the decent, good people who are their victims. He went on to say that the perpetrators of these bombings were guilty of cowardly and totally immoral actions against defenceless and harmless people and that sooner or later they would have to atone and answer for their deeds. He added that no doubt there would be screams for public sympathy when that happened.
The Bishop of Derry then referred to what is happening in H block at Her Majesty's prison Maze. He said:
 As a person who is concerned about prison conditions and interrogation procedures here in the North, may I point out that atrocities such as those of last week further erode the little public concern that remains about such matters.
It is a fact, and I do not think that any hon. Member in the House could deny it, that the self-inflicted squalor in H block has one purpose only—falsely to convict of brutality the Northern Ireland prison service, to whose devotion and sacrifice just tribute has been paid in this debate.
There is only one thing that keeps the Provos in business—the lingering hope that the"Brits"can be bombed or bored out of Ireland. Unfortunately, there are those on this side of the water, as well as in this House, who call for the removal of British forces. This means surrender of the sovereignty of the British Crown and encourages that lingering hope which keeps the Provisionals going. I shall not comment on the motives of those who man the"Troops Out"movement, but all they are achieving is the prolonging of the troubles and the terror.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: I am not inclined to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) except to remark on the paradox of what he said. While he is anxious to keep British

sovereignty over that foreign country called Ireland, he shows less anxiety on this score in Rhodesia.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I shall not refer to Rhodesia because that is beyond the scope of the order. I am anxious to maintain the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. They should have the same right as that given to the people of Southern Ireland to determine their status and whether they wish to adhere to the union, democratically and freely, by voting.

Mr. Litterick: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I can understand that he is not anxious to pursue the matter of Rhodesia. There may have been a slight error of emphasis in his closing remarks.
I am inclined to agree with the statement of the Secretary of State that violence is irrelevant in the context of reaching political solutions, but I am also uncomfortably aware that I can agree with the Secretary of State quite easily because I am the inheritor of a political tradition in which violence plays a virtually non-existent part. In so far as it has played a part, it is in the distant past.
It is easy for Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen to agree among ourselves that violence is more of a nuisance than anything else in the resolution of political problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) referred to the fact that not only are we in the ninth or tenth year of a war but that the Province of Ulster and the Republic of Ireland were created in, and out of, violence.
While the Irish Republicans of the day were negotiating at gunpoint—that is, the British were pointing guns at their heads —the Carsonite mutineers were pointing their guns at the head of the British Government. By violence and the threat of violence, Ulster and the Republic of Ireland were created. Before then, most of the significant political changes in the relationship between England and Ireland occurred either as a result of violence or as a consequence of the threat of violence. I shall not bore the House by going through a historic catalogue.
Even a simple matter like the saying of the Catholic mass in British prisons was


conceded only after a series of what one would now call terrorist attacks in Britain and the death of several prisoners in British prisons through hunger strikes. That was violence over the simple matter of following a religious ritual in the prison system. It did not challenge the integrity or the sovereignty of the British Crown, but it did, apparently, challenge the right of the then British ruling class to decide to the last letter how Irish peopleCatholics—would run their affairs, even in British gaols. They were citizens like everyone else, but some of them had to die to obtain the simple right to say mass in gaol.
While we deplore the violence in this situation and perhaps agree that violence is irrelevant to the solution of political problems, it might be less easy for an Irishman to agree with us. His experience of the resolution of political conflicts is decidedly different from that of Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen unless we reach far back into our own history where we discover as violent a past as anyone else has experienced.
The Secretary of State claimed progress, as he usually does, but I wonder about that. He told me two weeks ago that there are six times as many people in prison in Northern Ireland as there were 10 years ago. I suppose that that is progress of a sort, but it is rather a bleak sort of progress.
The Secretary of State went on to assert that the need for the Act is still present. I am not sure whether he said that he thought we had a fair and effective means of enforcement or whether he meant that he was aiming at producing or developing a fair and effective means of enforcement. I think that it is generally agreed, however, that the objections to the Act are that in its enforcement it is far from fair and efficient. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South that it is counter-productive. The very existence of the Act is counter-productive because it implies the systematic use of force by the State to produce a particular kind of order.
I do not intend to go through the Act clause by clause, but let me give an example by quoting sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. They all say much the same thing. To the average British citizen they por-

tray the key characteristic of this kind of legislation and for the average British citizen they provide sound enough reason for objecting to the use of this kind of legislation by the State in any circumstances.
For example, section 11 begins:
 Any constable may arrest without warrant any person ".
Section 13 begins:
 Any constable may arrest without warrant any person ".
Section 14 begins:
 A member of Her Majesty's forces on duty may arrest without warrant… whom he suspects".
Section 15 reads:
 Any member of Her Majesty's forces… or any constable may enter any premises ".
We see"may arrest any person"and"may enter any premises"without warrant, and every Englishman, Scotsman and Welshman and, I hope, without too much confidence bearing in mind who is present, every Irishman will feel that this is basically wrong, whatever is being attempted to achieve by it. It will inevitably lead not simply to occasional abuse but to a systematic violation of people's rights.
Whatever was happening before—and I do not want to dig that up—to heap upon it the opportunity for certain executive arms of the State to add further injustice will not lead any community towards the solution of any political problem. It will simply add fuel to the existing fire.
I can give an example. There is a man in the public gallery who is observing the debate. His name is Brendan Gallagher. He has been arrested, under section 14 of the Act, more than 300 times. He was arrested 183 times in a 12-month period under that section, which reads:
 A member of Her Majesty's forces on duty may arrest without warrant, and detain for not more than four hours, a person whom he suspects of committing, having committed or being about to commit any offence.
One would have thought that after the first 100 times the security forces—that is the Army—would at least have been driven to the conclusion that whatever crime they suspected this man of committing, or planning to commit, it was not true, because they could not get any proof. But no, they went on to arrest him another 100 times, and then


a further 100 times after that. In any other community in Britain, let alone in Europe, that would have amounted to harassment.
The man to whom I refer has never ever been brought to court by the security forces. As he has been arrested over 300 times, hon. Members can work out how many times his home has been broken into and turned over by the Army. He has never once been arrested by the police. That seems to me a strange circumstance, because usually the local police know more about the local community and those who live in it than does anybody else. They are certainly likely to know more than the British Army, which, unhappily, is not regarded with brotherly affection by the minority community in Northern Ireland.
Despite that knowledge, the RUC has never once invaded that man's home. It has never once arrested him on any charge, however spurious or difficult to sustain. But that has not deterred the Army from using its power under this Act to arrest this man more than 300 times.
I repeat for the benefit of the Minister of State that the man's name is Brendan Gallagher, who lives in Strabane. The sheer number of arrests is evidence enough that he is being deliberately and maliciously harassed. It is the Minister's duty, on our behalf, to discover why successive regiments of Her Majesty's forces—and in the period of four years of which I speak many regiments have been involved—have systematically harassed Brendan Gallagher despite the fact that he is palpably innocent of any crime against any law—and even the law contained in the Act which is now before us, which is in itself a stupidity.
I could stand here all night reciting stories of other Brendan Gallaghers, but I shall not do so because it seems to me that Brendan Gallagher himself can stand for them all. He can stand for the true meaning of this British legislation which has been forced on the Irish people.
If the Minister can justify the Army arresting an innocent man more than 300 times, I think that my right hon. Friend had better warn the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary not to be so brave when abroad in their declarations about

human rights. This man is innocent, and he is being got at. This Act is being used to destroy his life by making him a marked man. If that can be done to one man, I suggest that it can be done to anybody, because this legislation confers that kind of power on an executive arm of the State.
We all know that the Opposition are keen to rise to challenge the Minister if they hear that a tax inspector has invaded somebody's premises to discover whether he is not paying his whack. In such a case they advocate the individual's rights with great vehemence, but I wonder whether they will be as strong in their advocacy of human rights in the case that I have put before the House.
How many times do British soldiers have to arrest a man to pin a charge on him? It appears that 300-plus is not enough. How much time is being wasted on these multiple, pointless, stupid arrests? How much bad feeling is being created by behaviour of that kind?
There is another section of the community to which reference is made from time to time but not, I suggest, in the proper terms. The harassment under the powers given by this Act is applied to very young people. I am talking about schoolchildren. What I am describing is being clone by the Army throughout Northern Ireland. Children are taken to police stations, held for a short while and then released. It happens virtually every day. No charges are laid. The children are taken in so that the Army can scare the living daylights out of them.
What happens? The children develop a hearty dislike, not to put too fine a point on it, of people in British uniform. The British uniform becomes synonymous with being taken to an Army post, thumped and then thrown out. That is what happens.
My right hon. Friend has a duty to answer for that sort of behaviour. The people who behave in that way, and those who make Brendan Gallagher's life unbearable, are acting on my right hon. Friend's behalf. He is allowing it to happen on our behalf. We in turn are allowing it to happen on behalf of the British people. I cannot justify that.
I can find no political necessity for that sort of behaviour by an executive arm of the State. Nor, I believe, can my


right hon. Friend. I do not think that tonight he will seriously try to justify that behaviour. I hope that he will seriously investigate the case of Brendan Gallagher. The Act is what Brendan Gallagher's life is all about. It is about giving irresponsible people powers which they never should have had in the first place. It is about relying on military power to get political solutions.
My right hon. Friend's experience should have taught him a long time ago that there is no way in which soldiers can create a solution for politicians. Indeed, the opposite is invariably the result. The only thing that soldiers can do, however well-meaning they may be, is to mess up a political situation. They poison it and make it even more difficult to resolve. The Act is the underpinning piece of legislation. It virtually guarantees that there will be no political solution while it is on the statute book.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has spoken about human rights. We are all anxious to sustain those rights for all citizens of the United Kingdom. No one would put up a case to deny human rights. However, there are exceptional circumstances that require the curtailment of rights on occasions. Northern Ireland has had 10 years of violence. Some sympathy should be extended to the people in that long-suffering province.
I recall the House being packed—I am not talking about the few hon. Members now in the Chamber discussing the war in Northern Ireland—when bomb outrages occurred in England. By heavens, hon. Members were to the fore on that occasion. They were virtually waving their fists in anger. Mr. Roy Jenkins, the humanitarian Home Secretary of the time who is now in Europe, said that in view of what had happened he had to take draconian measures to deal with the menace. Labour Members supported him. If a bomb outrage occurred in the constituency of the hon. Member for Selly Oak, he would be demanding strong action from the present Secretary of State. He would be demanding the introduction of troops to sustain the police.

Mr. Litterick: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. If he consults the records of the House, he will discover that I did not back Mr. Roy Jenkins on the occasion to which he refers. I criticised him most severely.

Mr. Kilfedde: r: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman backed Mr. Roy Jenkins. I said that if a bomb outrage occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he would demand of the Home Secretary that every effort should be made—

Mr. Litterick: It happened.

Mr. Kilfedder: —to attack those who were responsible for the outrage.

Mr. Litterick: Get it right.

Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says.
It is strange that when the Provisional IRA campaign is not affecting people in England, Scotland and Wales, hon. Members are not in the Chamber in large numbers to give support to Members representing Northern Ireland and to give moral support to the Northern Ireland people. The Ulster people have sustained this attack on their liberties, their lives, their homes, their offices and their jobs for 10 years. The message from this House ought to be one of sympathy with them and congratulations to them on their forbearance and patience. Instead of that, the Ulster people would be right to be angry at what has just been said by the hon. Gentleman.
In his speech, the Secretary of State spoke of the blatant attempts being made by the Provisional IRA to panic the community, particularly the business community, with its recent bombing campaign. He emphasised that there was a new sense of confidence in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand how the Secretary of State can say that. The people of Northern Ireland have great courage. They do not intend ever to be defeated by the Provisional IRA and bombed into an all-Ireland Republic, but they have no confidence that the bombing and the terrorism will be brought to an end by the present policy.
The Secretary of State said that support for the Provisional IRA was dwindling and that its sporadic attacks were being made from less secure areas in Belfast and


Londonderry. What evidence has he for that statement? Can he say that the police are now policing those areas in greater numbers? That would be the only evidence to show that the people were turning away from support for the Provisional IRA and giving support to the forces of law and order.
Once again we had statistics, coldly given by the Secretary of State, almost like a doctor describing to a crowd of medical students the progress of his dissection of a body. We are dealing—this is the point which needs to be made constantly—with the lives and deaths of Ulster men and Ulster women. We are dealing with horrible mutilation and terrible devastation in the Province. For the past 10 years, figures have been trotted out regularly from the Dispatch Box intended to show that the Government are winning the battle in Northern Ireland. Once again, we have had figures of the number of people arrested in Northern Ireland, the number of rifles found, the number of convictions obtained, and so on. But the figures given by the Secretary of State do not convince me that the Government are winning, or, indeed, attempting to win, the war against the Provisional IRA.
Once again, I beg to differ. I do not believe that the policy being pursued by the Government is right. The Secretary of State gave some indication that he was on the wrong lines when he declared that one cannot isolate security policy from political, social and economic development. This discloses, to my mind, the weakness of the Government, who seem to believe that the terrorists will be persuaded to cease their violence as a result of political or economic policy. This is sheer moonshine, because the terrorists will keep on fighting, taking lives, mutilating and destroying, because that is what they are hooked on. They want to be able one day to say that they have driven the British out of Northern Ireland and have brought Northern Ireland within an all-Ireland Republic.
I have already said that the Provisional IRA will not defeat the Ulster people. Even if the British Government withdraw from Northern Ireland—and the Left wing of the Labour Party would love them to do so—the Ulster people will stand on their own two feet and face the Provisional IRA and whatever menace

the IRA might wish to offer a decent, law-abiding people who, in fact, live on good terms with their co-religionists in Northern Ireland. The Provisional IRA has brought great havoc to the Province and has created a hatred which was not there before. Two weeks ago 14 towns in Northern Ireland were bombed and eight were bombed last week. Yesterday chaos was created in Belfast as a result of two bombs and three hoax bombs. Castlederg was devastated a fortnight ago and the whole of one street in Omagh was destroyed. The quantity of explosives available to the IRA has not been effectively reduced. For instance, a 150 lb bomb was defused in Maghera.
It is against this background of renewed violence and destruction that I challenge the Government on their reduction of troops in Northern Ireland. I have said in debates this year, last year and the previous year that the Government should not reduce the number of Regular troops in Northern Ireland. But they continue with their policy, against the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
I wish to give evidence of an ever-present danger facing the people of Ulster who have shown such remarkable restraint and fortitude.
The name of Martin Meehan is well known to many hon. Members. He is one of the notorious IRA godfathers of violence and is believed to have been involved in the murder of 13 policemen. I have discovered that during the past week Martin Meehan has been in my constituency of Bangor, a quiet but highly-populated area where Protestants and Roman Catholics live happily together. All that the police were able to do was to stop him, search him and his car, and let him go. He is one of the leaders of the Provisional IRA who are manipulating young people and others and terrifying many of them into acts of violence.
During that same week, last week, six men suspected of being members of the youth wing of the Provisional IRA, all of them from the Markets area of Belfast, were also spotted in Bangor. What were they there for?
In view of the widespread bombing campaign in the 22 towns I have mentioned during the past two weeks, one


can assume that Martin Meehan and the six suspected members of the Provisional IRA were not there just to take the sea air or taste the pleasures of that resort. They were, no doubt, making a survey of Bangor to discover where the security checks were only perfunctory and where targets were easily available.
That is the threat to Bangor and its people. There are threats to other towns and villages throughout Northern Ireland. Many of them have already suffered terribly. Innocent people have been injured or have lost their lives and have had their homes and their jobs taken from them.
I cannot function properly as a Member of Parliament representing Northern Ireland without protesting in the name of the people of Ulster by saying that more troops are necessary there. More action is needed by the Government to restrain the terrorists. Certainly action is needed to take persons like Martin Meehan out of circulation until the violence is ended.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: At the outset, I think it is right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that on a number of occasions the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned an individual in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that that individual was suspected of having been involved in the murder of 13 policemen. That was a serious allegation, and it should not have been made in the House. If there is evidence that that person was involved in the murder of 13 policemen, or others, that evidence should be given to the security forces in Northern Ireland. It is not right that such aspersions should be cast in the House.
The hon. Gentleman said that he suspected that Mr. Martin Meehan was in Bangor in his constituency to case the joint for possible bombings. That was another serious allegation which must cause some concern to the people who live in that area.

Mr. Kilfedder: It causes me some concern.

Mr. Fitt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I suggest that he should

be more certain of his information before making such allegations in the House.
I have no time for Martin Meehan. I suspect that at one time he was a member of the Provisional IRA. Anyone who has had any contact with that organisation does not have any support from me. However, it is unfair to name any person in the House if allegations cannot be fully supported by evidence.
We are discussing an order made under the emergency provisions Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said that we had had these emergency provisions for some years. As anyone in Northern Ireland knows, emergency provisions legislation of this description was first placed on the statute book in the Northern Ireland House of Commons in 1922. It was known as the Special Powers Act. From 1922 until 1929 it was renewed every 12 months by the Parliament in Northern Ireland. In 1929 the Government said that the Act should become a permanent part of Northern Ireland legislation. Therefore it was not of necessity debated every year in the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
Throughout those years certain sections and provisions of the Special Powers Act were used against individuals in Northern Ireland. That did not stop the violence—it increased it. Every year, at Easter, whenever there was a Royal visit or if there seemed to be a heightening of tension between Republican and loyalist communities, the Act was brought into being, and though people were not charged they were interned.
Looking back, we now see that such legislation as this is no guarantee that there will be a diminution of violence. The existence of such legislation was a big factor in the commencement of the civil rights movement in 1968. One of the demands then made was for the abolition of the Special Powers Act. It had been a running sore in Northern Ireland since the day it went on the statute book in 1922.
The Special Powers Act was taken off the statute book in 1972 by the Conservative Government and replaced by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Six years afterwards, we still find it being renewed every year. I do not want to predict, but I am confident that this


legislation is almost becoming part of the permanent legislation affecting Northern Ireland.
After the Birmingham bombings, which killed so many innocent people, the House met in a mood of absolute hysteria and put on the statute book the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. The then Home Secretary said that it was draconian legislation. If that was draconian legislation for this part of the United Kingdom, this is draconian legislation as it affects people in Northern Ireland.
Anyone who opposes this legislation is liable to be called a friend or supporter of the Provisional IRA. I believe that there are many people in Northern Ireland who have a respect for the law, who have a respect for the judicial system as it has evolved in the United Kingdom and Ireland over a thousand years, who have a detestation of every act of violence committed by the IRA, but who are still not prepared to accept such legislation.
Such concern was expressed by my hon. Friends about the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act as it affected that part of the United Kingdom that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought it advisable to hold an inquiry into the operations of that Act. A committee was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Shackleton, who has since reported to my right hon. Friend. If such concern was expressed over the operation of that Act, I believe that it is just as necessary to have a committee or some means of investigation which would be acceptable to, and have the support of, the general public in Northern Ireland to consider the ramifications of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act and decide whether it affects innocent people throughout the Six Counties.
I believe that this Act has infringed and impinged upon the liberties of thousands of innocent people of all religions in Northern Ireland. It is those people in whose defence I am speaking tonight. I do not speak in defence of anyone who has engaged in acts of violence. I am speaking on behalf of the innocent people who have been caught up within this Act.
In 1971, for the fourth or fifth time since the creation of the State of Northern Ireland, internment was introduced. In-

ternment was the raw nerve of the Catholic community, because on each and every occasion when it was brought into operation it was directed solely and exclusively at the Catholic minority population.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: That is not true.

Mr. Fitt: If the hon. Gentleman wants to contradict me, I am sure that he will be able to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye. I repeat that internment was directed exclusively at members of the Catholic community. During the war years there was one occasion when two or three Communists were caught up in it. Perhaps that justifies the disagreement which has been voiced by the hon. Gentleman. However, internment was the raw nerve of members of the Catholic community because they felt that these emergency powers, otherwise named the Special Powers Act, were being directed at them.
Every hon. Member knows what a disaster internment was. Because of the ending of internment, we found ourselves in the position of having H blocks and special category prisoners. I believe that at present internment exists under a different name. I refer to the very long periods of remand. It is my belief that every accused person in the United Kingdom has the right to be brought before a court and either convicted or set free. I do not believe that it is justifiable, under any circumstances, to remand a person in prison for up to two years. However bad or overloaded the system, and however heavy the burden on the police or the Department of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland, two years is far too long. There have been cases of persons being remanded for up to two years, yet when they have been brought before the courts they have been found not guilty. In other cases people have been brought before the courts and sentenced to one year's imprisonment when they have already suffered two years in prison on remand.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that all those who appear in court have spent two years on remand. There was one exceptional case which involved all the possible judicial processes and


which was finalised in the House of Lords.

Mr. Fitt: I am saying that many people in Northern Ireland have been months and months on remand. The Minister of State says that there was only one case of a person being kept on remand for two years. We are dealing with draconian legislation. The Minister should not come to the Dispatch Box and say that we need the legislation because of what happened last week and the week before that. Ministers should be able to tell us how many people have been on remand for over six months or even over 16 months. I should be delighted if the Minister could disprove the figures which I have given.
I urge the Minister to use every endeavour before the end of the debate to supply those figures. There must be somebody in the Northern Ireland Office, either here or in Northern Ireland—that is, if they are not all at Christmas parties—who can tell him how many people are on remand in Northern Ireland and how long they have been on remand. The House is entitled to know those figures.
In Northern Ireland there is a tendency to believe that if a person is charged with a scheduled offence he is guilty. The Secretary of State referred to the person who has been charged in relation to the terrible La Mon House tragedy which so convulsed the population of Northern Ireland, such was its brutality and fruitlessness. What will be heard and read in Northern Ireland about that? It will be said that the charged man is guilty. Why did the Secretary of State refer to that case? The effect that it will have on everyone in Northern Ireland is well known. There is a tendency to believe that if someone is charged with a terrorist offence he is guilty before he is convicted by judge or jury.
Reference has been made to the fact that other persons have been charged with serious offences. Instead of mentioning the La Mon House tragedy in the House again, the Secretary of State should do everything that he can to ensure that the person concerned is brought before the courts as quickly as possible and, if he is guilty, subjected to the full consequences of the law. Anybody who was involved in that dastardly, ugly affair

gets no sympathy from me or from any sane section of the Northern Ireland community. He must be found guilty in a court and not convicted here by innuendo.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I seem to pick out the same sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State said that security cannot be separated from the political, social and economic development of Northern Ireland. That is exactly what this legislation is doing. It is looking for a military solution to a political problem. The more it continues, the more of a vicious circle it creates.
I heard the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) advocate that the present RUC force be increased from 6,500 to 8,500. We have heard this before. I have already said that since 1922 we have had the Special Powers Act and over the past five or six years we have had the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. I am not quite sure what the military figure is and I do not think anyone in Northern Ireland is quite sure. There are all sorts of people who believe that the Army is being taken away very quickly and there is doubt about the effective numbers, but the last number that I heard was 13,000.
Therefore, there are 13,000 members of the British Army in Northern Ireland, 8,000 members of the UDR and 6,500 members of the RUC. The right hon. Member for Belfast, East is advocating that the RUC force should be increased to 8,500. Next year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will say"We now have 8,500 members of the RUC." Then more Opposition Members will say that we should bring that number up to 10,000. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) will then say that South Armagh, in his constituency, is not as well protected as it should be.

Mr. Craig: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman prefers to have the Army doing the job of the police force rather than policemen doing a police job?

Mr. Fitt: I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to understand anything of the sort. Perhaps he would listen to the argument which I am trying to put forward and the questions I am posing. Someone can then try to give me the answers.?
I have already said that there are 13,000 Army personnel, 8,000 UDR men and 6,500 members of the RUC—and that last figure will be increased if we listen to the request of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East. Next year we shall come back to the House and we shall be told that things are going very well and that we have got more recruits for the RUC. We shall then be told that we are doing even better and have more recruits for the UDR. We shall not be too sure—as we are not too sure tonight—about the number of Army personnel.
The hon. Member for Armagh will then say that his constituency seems to have been neglected by the Army and that there are not enough SAS men there. Therefore, again we would be off on the merry-go-round. Instead of 32,000 we shall have 34,000 this time next year, and the year after that 36,000 and the year after that we shall have 40,000, and we shall be no nearer a solution to the problem of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what, in his opinion, the optimum strength is for the different sections of the security forces?

Mr. Fitt: There are 1½ million people in Northern Ireland, and I think we would need about half a million RUC personnel, half a million UDR personnel, and half a million others. At the moment there is no optimum figure. That is the terrible tragedy of it. Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have no optimum figure in mind.
Why are there so many Army personnel in Northern Ireland? What are they doing? Are they leading to a diminution of the campaign of violence, or are some of their actions calculated to escalate the tensions and emotions?
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) quoted at length from the Act and referred to the power which it gives to the police and the Army. I suggest that an Army is not the weapon that one uses to grapple with the political situation in Northern Ireland. Many of the Army's actions are very serious whilst others can only be described as very funny.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will have read a report in The Irish Times of last Saturday in which it was reported that a person who lived in Dublin was travelling to Belfast to visit relations. He was stopped late at night by an Army patrolman on the northern side of the border. Even at that time of night it was easy to see that the Army questioner did not come from Newry. However, the soldier asked the driver of the car Where are you coming from?"The driver said that he had come from Dublin and that he was going to Belfast to see his relations. The soldier, who, as I say, obviously did not come from Newry—he was West Indian—said to the driver"You are very far from home, are you not?"The driver of the car said"Well, you are not exactly sitting under a banana tree yourself." For that, the driver was dragged from his car and kept for four hours, the maximum permitted time that a person can be kept by the Army.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Racism !

Mr. Fitt: That is what I said. The West Indian should not have treated that Irishman in such an objectionable manner.
The Shackleton inquiry into the prevention of terrorism found that 2,000 people had been detained at various ports of embarkation, airports and so on, in Northern Ireland and in Britain. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell me—if not tonight, perhaps he will reply by letter—how many persons have been taken to the Castlereagh interrogation centre this year? How many were taken there last year? How many were subsequently charged, and how many were subsequently released? How long were those individuals kept in the interrogation centre? Was it one, two or three days? Was the extension of the prevention of terrorism legislation used when they were kept there for seven days? How many people were released without being charged? All this is relevant to one's acceptance or rejection of this type of legislation.
Every six months, when the House is asked to renew this legislation, the Government seem to take the view"Anyone who opposes this is not living with reality. People should not be opposing this." The Government seem to say that people


should be giving the Secretary of State, the Army, the police and all the security forces in Northern Ireland a blank cheque —" Go ahead. Do what you want." If we ever arrive at a time when this House is not prepared to stand up in defence of innocent individuals, the reputation that this country has had in regard to human rights will certainly have gone. That is why I am speaking here tonight.
Over the past few days, I confess that I have wondered whether I should take part in this debate, because of the activities of the IRA over the past few weekends and how they have wrecked so many small towns in Northern Ireland, particularly Castlederg, which I know well. Many individuals have lost shops and homes in Castlederg. Condemnation has been levelled at the IRA by his lordship the Bishop of Londonderry and by many others. Rather than listen to that justifiable condemnation of those terrible acts, the IRA engages in exactly the same thing the next week and the week after that.
I do not think that all members of the IRA are stupid. They knew that this debate was to take place here tonight. Perhaps they thought to themselves that that would stop me, the Member for Belfast, West, taking any part in the debate, and that after their actions I would be embarrassed, perhaps, in trying to level any criticism at this legislation.
I believe that I am more justified than ever I was in standing on the Floor of this House and questioning this legislation, trying to ensure that it is not inflicted on those who do not deserve it. In Northern Ireland the powers of the Army are unlimited as regards the question of the number of arrests. I am not too sure of the figures that have been mentioned by the Secretary of State. I remember asking the same question on the last occasion when we debate the extension of these powers. What is the maximum number of times that one person has been brought into the interrogation centre at Castlereagh and released without any charge ever having been levelled?
When people are repeatedly taken to that interrogation centre, even though they are innocent, when they are released they return to their place of employment, if they have one, and their

employer will ask"Where have you been?"They will say that they were being interrogated at the Castlereagh interrogation centre, and immediately a suspicion is created in the mind of their employer, particularly if this happens on a number of occasions. The employer has the suspicion, and may be entitled to it, that that person has been engaged in some kind of terrorist activity. There is no proof, but it may lead to that person losing his employment. I know of instances where unemployed persons who, on the day they were supposed to sign the unemployment register, were in Castlereagh. When they returned that night, or the next day, or perhaps two or three days later, they were denied unemployment benefit for the days that they were incarcerated in Castlereagh. I do not believe that there is any entitlement to do that under the Act.
My right hon. Friend will recall the occasions some months ago when protests were made in the House about the killing of a young man, John Boyle, in county Antrim, by members of the SAS. Since then—and I say this to show that this matter cuts across the sectarian and political divide—a constituent of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) has died in almost exactly the same circumstances. The same emotions were aroused and expressed about the circumstances of both deaths.
I believe that any inquiry that was necessary into the circumstances of these two deaths could have been carried out within a day, or two days or three days, and certainly no longer than a week. But it has taken months, and now we hear that the papers in the Boyle case have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it will probably take months before he delivers his conclusion as to whether there should be a criminal charge against those responsible for the death.
That timelag is not acceptable in Northern Ireland. When a person is killed in such controversial circumstances, it is the duty of the Northern Ireland Office, with all the support that it has at its command, to swing into action and ensure that the circumstances are fully investigated and a verdict given within a week at the latest.
One can make suggestions—I do not want to say to improve the Act. I do not


want to see it improved. I want to see it abolished because I believe that it is eroding every standard of the legal system as we have known it in Northern Ireland and in these islands for upwards of 1,000 years. I do not believe that the Act on its own will lead to the defeat of the IRA. I believe that the longer it is on the statute book, the more it will create a vicious circle of circumstances which will lead to more young people joining the Provisional IRA.
Only a very small and insignificant number of people give any credence or support to the men of violence in Northern Ireland. Those who are engaged in violence are not restricted to one section of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South was right to query the rather selective condemnation by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, who seemed to be saying that it was only the IRA that was responsible for the trouble. One can remember clearly, particularly if one represents a constituency in Northern Ireland, the dastardly and foul murders

committed over the past decade by the so-called loyalists and people who allegedly give their allegiance and support to the British connection.
I do not believe that this legislation is justified as it stands. An inquiry into every section of the Act should be initiated to see whether steps can be taken to ensure that it no longer affects the lives of many thousands of innocent people, as it has done.
I shall vote against the order. I understand that in a Division a few hours ago on the Public Lending Right Bill the vast majority of Members voted in one Lobby and only 13 voted in the other. I have no hesitation in predicting that there will be even fewer in the Lobby in which I find myself tonight. But I am not very concerned about the number of Members who will be there. I am concerned that with me in the Lobby there will be men of conscience who will have the courage to defy the requests made to them to give outright approval to the order, and who will be expressing their disapproval of this draconian legislation.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I believe that when historians look back at the present episode of terrorism in Northern Ireland they will shake their heads in amazement that this House allowed it to continue for as long as it has. We should not be surprised if they do, because if we look back over the history of the past decade we see that Governments of both parties have strayed into all sorts of highways and byways. If the same attention had been given to the business in hand as you have given to seeing that we keep to the order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we might not have gone into those highways and byways, and the House, the country and the Government might well have decided to fight the IRA instead of talking to it.
I am one of those who warned the Secretary of State many months ago that he needed to consider changes in the law to cope with the existing and developing situation. I know that in saying this I shall cause nothing but cries of horror to come from those opposed to any such movement, but the Secretary of State and the Government should remember that the same sounds were made when the legislation that we are considering was introduced, and we have heard them again tonight. But, despite what its detractors may say, the legislation has been very helpful in clearing up many of those whom the IRA leadership sees as its expendable cannon fodder, the young people of the Roman Catholic community used by the IRA to carry bombs, to do the shootings and murders and to carry out the stoning incidents. They are the people who have suffered. The godfathers of the IRA are still there. The Secretary of State will find that he has far more friends than enemies when he decides to defend the legislation and perpetuate it.
In saying that, I realise that it is incumbent upon me to defend what I have just said. If the present powers have been effective, as I believe they have, we must see the exact reasons why progress in the war against the IRA has apparently slowed down. We must also see what improvements we should seek.
The present position is basically that the godfathers, the leaders of the IRA, are free and those who did their bidding

are dead, on the run, in prison or maimed. The parents, friends and lovers of those people know perfectly well that the godfathers of the IRA are free, and I believe that they, more than anyone else, desire to see the IRA leadership in prison—or, for that matter, dead.
The Provisional IRA is the principal enemy and always has been. I am not doing what I shall no doubt be accused of, which is to concentrate on the Provisional IRA to the exclusion of all others, but it is the body responsible for the present wave of violence. It has always been in the forefront of the violence, and I believe that it always will be, as long as it is capable of playing that role.
The privates of the IRA have been decimated, and one of the reasons for that decimation is the powers in the emergency provisions Act. Those that have not been captured, killed or chased out of the country have been turned into sleepers. As a result, the whole level of IRA activity is way down on what it was. IRA tactics have changed, as everyone knows. At present there is a mere trickle, with spates, instead of the roaring torrent that we used to have. It has been a trickle, with short, sharp spates. for a long time.
In that period, I believe that those who make up the IRA leadership, who are not fools, have considered and assessed very carefully the strengths and weaknesses of the security forces operating within the present structure of law and the present Government policy to defeat them. I believe that the godfathers who have survived for this length of time have once more started to activate a small number of second-rankers. Some of those who recently have been captured in possession of bombs and bomb-making materials are the second-rankers, and that has not been happening regularly until the last two or three weeks.
Therefore, I believe that the key to this whole episode is the hard core of the IRA leaders. I should like to draw attention especially to the fact that the members of this hard core do not like losing one of their fellows. If a leading member of the IRA is killed, the IRA no longer publicises him in its death notices as a colonel, a major, a captain or even a


lieutenant. He is now described as a"volunteer ". He is never an IRA officer. I know, and no doubt the Secretary of State knows far better than I, that recently leading members of the IRA have been killed and, after their deaths, have been demoted from the rank which they held in that organisation.
If we are to take out the hard core—and we must, because it is made up of the people who are the most dangerous element in the whole set-up—we have to change the law. They know that if they are picked up and they made no admission, the chances are that they would go free even though a member of the public looking at the published evidence would say that clear evidence of their guilt existed. If he makes no admission, a murderer goes free.
I draw attention again to the case of Gerry Adams. He is a man who is known not only to the people of Northern Ireland but to all the world as a leading member of the IRA. There is a stack of published information about his sympathies and activities. Yet, when he got to court, the case against him could not be proved and he went free.
On 23rd of last month, I raised with the Prime Minister the question of Messrs. McCartney and Doherty, who were arrested in Londonderry this year after displaying, on 29th January, an M60 machine gun and an Armalite rifle. The scene was captured on film, and these two men are shown plainly on that film. That evidence did not stick. It could not stick. They had to be released. They are two of the leading members of the IRA in Londonderry city, and they have been known as such for many years.
It is no use any right hon. or hon. Member saying that the authorities have no proof. The proof is in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. It is in the communities in which these people live. The community has found them guilty, even if the courts have not, and we would do better to face the realities which exist on the ground in Northern Ireland.
The truth is that these are cases which are very well known, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State could list many more if he wished to do so. So we have to apply our minds to the question how

we should deal with the situation, because the present powers which the security forces have cannot. The Government have long since turned their back on interrogation in depth, and they have replaced that only partially with the present legislation.
If the Secretary of State knows that, he also knows that further powers are needed to ensure the preservation of life and property and, ultimately, freedom in Northern Ireland.
I suggest a few improvements that could be made. There is one activity of the security forces in Northern Ireland which has been stopped and which should be resumed quickly. I refer to the operation of frontier vehicle check points. In the last few weeks where these check points were maintained in the Strabane area and in the Donegal—Londonderry border area, the IRA had less success than elsewhere. Indeed, from 14th November, when the rest of Northern Ireland was under fairly heavy bombing attack, the Army stopped an IRA car bomb coming in over the Mourne bridge into Strabane. The next day members of the IRA tried over the Lifford bridge and they were caught again at a vehicle check point.
Looking at the pattern of bombing at that time and, indeed, since, one sees that there are paths out of Monaghan. These bombs are coming from the Republic. If one looks at the practical and strategic situation in Northern Ireland, one sees Monaghan, sticking up like a hand into the heart of Northern Ireland, as the natural place to launch attacks. There is no doubt in my mind that most of the bombs come in from that source and fan out through the Province by well-known routes along our excellent roads on their way to their targets.
It was not wise to remove the vehicle check points. The Army does not like them, but they have been a formidable obstacle to the IRA in the past. The security forces have stopped operating these check points and they should start again.
We must not retreat behind a cobweb wall into caged-off centres in the hearts of towns and villages. That is fatal. It is not only a psychological defeat for us; it is a psychological victory for the


IRA. It will also tie up so much manpower that the IRA will have far more freedom to do its evil work and to travel widely and freely throughout Northern Ireland. Instead of hedgehogging, we must keep the men out in the country after members of the IRA, who are trying to drive us back behind the cages. But they are only cobweb cages, and one cannot keep the bombs out that way. One must stop them outside and stop them at the source.
The new powers that I suggest have been suggested before. No doubt the Secretary of State will hear them again and again. I hope that some day he will listen and make use of them. News items, film, tape and photographic evidence should be sufficient to prove to a court that there is a case to answer. The people of Northern Ireland have seen these men taking part in marches and have seen their photographs in the newspapers. They have seen the statements that have been attributed to these men, and have heard their speeches on the radio and seen them on television. None of this has been sufficient, in any case, to secure a conviction. But the people of Northern Ireland are absolutely convinced—as are the people of Britain—that those involved are not only members of the IRA but are leading members. This should be sufficient evidence.
The statements of convicted prisoners also should be admissible as evidence, as should statements made before justices of the peace, if some people are afraid to appear in the early stages.
Opinion of character, statements of previous convictions and the reputation of the individuals concerned should he admissible as evidence in court. If this is hidden, material facts about the person's life up to that time are also hidden.
Above all, we should make use of the sort of legislation that exists in the Irish Republic, under which the evidence of a senior police office is sufficient to secure a conviction. The House is prepared to accept that certificates from the Chief Constable in relation to damage caused by an illegal body are sufficient to authorise payment of hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation. Why can we not accept such a certificate to secure the conviction of some of those who are walking free and master-minding the

terrorist horrors that we see in Northern Ireland?
I hope that those suggestions will be considered by the Government. I do not want an answer tonight because such a reply would be a gut reaction. I want the Government to think about what I have suggested. If they do not extend their powers, they can go no further. The war of attrition against the godfathers will go on, but it will be so slow that the IRA will always be able to replace those men. We must rapidly take out of society and put into prison the extremely dangerous people who arc running the whole show in Northern Ireland.
The emergency provisions legislation has been renewed far to often and the horror has gone on for far too long. I sometimes wonder what will be the reaction of people in Britain and Northern Ireland when all the files are opened in 22 or 23 years' time. I wonder how all those who have been concerned with Northern Ireland will feel at that time. I have no doubt that the present Secretary of State will come out of it a great deal better than will his predecessors. I hope and pray that the right hon. Gentleman will go on to enhance his standing by doing what needs to be done.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member from Derry—

Mr. Wm. Ross: Londonderry.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman made a speech loaded with references to administration, where the bombs come from, the type of machine guns that are used, the courts and how to get men into gaol. There was the whole key to the utter futility, sense of hopelessness and political bankruptcy which emanate from the Ulster Unionist Benches.
We shall still be discussing this legislation 10 years from now if Unionist Members continue with that sort of attitude, which contains not a pennyweight of politics. If that frame of mind continues to pervade our debates we may as well wrap up, because we shall be here for evermore, growing more weary as we listen to the sort of nonsense that we have just heard.
I shall attempt to raise the level of the debate and politicise it. Ulster


Unionist Members may grin, but they do not seem to understand politics. That is the harsh reality. They are bankrupt of political ideas. That is the key to the terrible tragedy of Northern Ireland. The Unionists have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
I pay tribute, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would wish, to the ordinary people of both communities in Northern Ireland. They are the sufferers and I have the greatest regard for their fortitude and the way they have suffered through all these long, weary years. I believe that they will suffer for much longer if some politics do not emerge from the people who have caused all the upset by their oppression of the minority community for so many years.
Why was the Act passed? Does anyone think that the IRA will win? Of course, it will not, but it will carry on. The counsels of the Conservative Benches have told us at least 50 times that the IRA was being defeated. They are dreaming. The attrition can continue almost indefinitely, and it will continue until there is a political solution to this terrible problem.
Not everyone in this country wants the British troops in Northern Ireland. I want them there because the two communities want them there, and the communities know more about the suffering than I do. There is a large and growing number of people in this country, however, who do not want them there. For the first time constituency Labour Parties are discussing this subject. That is the harsh reality. Northern Ireland has communal politics, not the kind of politics across a divide that we have here.
An inbuilt majority was created in the 1920s by which a line was drawn round the majority Protestant group. Now the whirlwind is here because of that. Had that inbuilt majority not oppressed the minority, had it behaved democratically to permit the existence of ordinary political parties across the divide, the trouble would never have occurred.
The Unionists want to go back to the Stormont that created this situation. They want to carry on in the same old way, oppressing the minority, which knows what they want. It is from that base that the IRA is sustained. The Unionists, who

refused to allow power sharing to work, want to return to the status quo ante of which they were so proud, and very often they forget themselves and say that here.
The situation that we now face has allowed these emergency provisions to be passed on every melancholy occasion that we have discussed them. For me they have only one real use. They enable me to write a few notes on the back page of the order. They are provocative provivisions that stir up far more trouble than they can possibly suppress.
But there is no sign of any intention on the part of the Unionists to learn the lesson that the key to the problem, the only factor that will bring peace, is an extension of democracy to the minority community so that it knows that it will enjoy democracy. Only then will they refuse to make room for the IRA or any other group of terrorists.
The only possible base for peace in Northern Ireland is for both communities to know that British democracy will obtain in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bradford: Absolutely.

Mr. Flannery: Hon. Members should not be fooled by the"Hear, hears"from the Unionist Benches. They do not believe what I believe. They believe in communalist politics, by which that inbuilt majority does not extend democracy to the minority community, and that leads to the emergency provisions.
Do the Unionists think that this outbreak would have taken place had they extended democracy? The minority Catholic community was kept in virtual subjection all those years. Whenever a minority is denied democracy, it will ultimately break out.
The policies of the Government and of the Ulster Unionists share a common trait of absolute bankruptcy and utter futility. Never in this Chamber do we discuss the politics of Northern Ireland we discuss only the melancholy methods of suppressing the bombers. We have to find a solution that does not involve retaliating against the bombers, using the troops as policemen and the policemen as soldiers, but with no Catholics being recruited into those forces.
The Ulster Unionists have no solution to this problem. I would dearly love to hear them discuss the politics of the Northern Ireland problem. The base of the IRA will be destroyed politically and not by any so-called emergency provisions. When the Catholic community has confidence that democracy is on the agenda of history in Northern Ireland, then and then only will the IRA base be destroyed and peace emerge.
In my opinion, these emergency provisions have not a snowball in hell's chance of contributing to or solving the problems in Northern Ireland. I believe with all my heart that those who pass these provisions honourably believe that they will solve the problems or contribute to their solution, and I do not doubt their integrity. It is tragic that they take that view, but I believe that unless the politics of Northern Ireland are discussed, and unless both communities feel safe, the IRA will still be there and will not be defeated.
If anybody can prove to me that the IRA is being defeated, I shall be delighted to have that information. The fact that the security aspect is better than it has been for a long time is no proof of the defeat of the IRA. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) talks in a melancholy fashion about guns, bombs, and how to prevent them, as though that is a solution to the problem. I believe that the whole atmosphere of this debate is one of futility and despair.
I shall vote against these provisions, because I believe that they make no contribution to the solution of the problems that beset the people of Northern Ireland or in seeking to defeat the terrorists.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: A good deal of the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will strike a chord on the Opposition Benches. He castigated the House for not debating the politics of Northern Ireland and for not approaching the problem with political considerations in mind. I am mystified how he can reach that conclusion, because in the past Session some of the most important political considerations have been ventilated and reflected upon by the Labour Front Bench. I refer in particular to the pro-

posal to increase the Northern Ireland representation in this House. Increased representation for Northern Ireland will have the most beneficial effect for Roman Catholics and Protestants. That represents a political advance, and one hopes that it will be completed this Session.
The hon. Gentleman talked a great deal about democracy. The fact is that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has persistently advocated an upper tier of local government for Northern Ireland which, by its nature, would involve representatives from both communities. Members of that upper tier could represent their constituencies without any enforced power sharing or imposed solution from this side of the Irish Channel. That kind of progress, which has emerged in the course of debates in this House, refutes the pessimism of the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of the difficulties encountered by the minority community in Northern Ireland. I agree with much of what he said. However, the problem did not begin in 1920. If the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1793—devised and placed on the statute book by Englishmen, in the main—had been far-seeing, some of the difficulties in reconciling the Roman Catholic community in terms of sovereignty might not have persisted with the intensity that obtains at present.
Do not level blame for that sort of mistake on either Stormont or Members of Parliament who now represent the Province of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members in this House must look to their own backyard to find the reasons for the great division between the Sovereign and the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
I shall explain why many more Roman Catholics are not found in the police or in the UDR. It is not because men and women of that persuasion were not willing to serve. It is not because they were not welcomed into the Northern Ireland forces. It is a simple and yet sad reason. It is that the courageous Roman Catholic men and women—many of them living in border areas—who were prepared to join the UDR and RUC Reserve were singled out to be massacred and maimed. I do not blame any of them—those, that is, who survived—for having second


thoughts. Do not let us by half truths imply that they were neither welcomed nor willing to serve in the forces of Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) invited me to return to the issue of internment and the people who were affected by that policy. There were four major experiences of internment in Northern Ireland. Two categories at least of those involved were not members of the minority community. The hon. Member for Belfast, West cited the first such category. In 1972, when I was called to a special synod in Belfast, headed by somebody for whom I know the hon. Gentleman has deep regard, an eminent cleric stated that we had to evolve a ministry to the Protestants who were interned and who would be interned in increasing numbers.
I know that in advancing his arguments the hon. Gentleman tends to elaborate and exaggerate. I can understand that. He is a man of deep conviction, as we all are in Northern Ireland. However, at times the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. In this instance he is definitely inaccurate.

Mr. Fitt: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that on 9th August 1971, the day of the original internment swoop, 357 people were arrested in the early hours of the morning and interned, and that not one of those persons was a loyalist or a Unionist?

Mr. Bradford: The hon. Gentleman is right. I live not a quarter of a mile from the area in which most of them lived. However, it was not many days before there was a balance of activity by the Administration prior to the present Administration. That Administration made some of the most dastardly mistakes, and they were contrived mistakes.
I have three points to make relating to the order. First, I direct my remarks to the use of troops in Northern Ireland. It would be impertinent of me to try to advise the GOC in Northern Ireland how best to use his troops, or to advise the Minister how best that pursuit could be undertaken. I am not too concerned about trying to arrive at the right number of troops. I am concerned not with numbers but with deployment. On that score I feel that I have a right to comment.
One thing which is conveniently forgotten by some hon. Members on the Government Benches is that terrorists in Northern Ireland, America, Italy or wherever terrorism has become endemic exploit above all the element of surprise. There is little point in placing thousands of troops in the streets and byways of Northern Ireland to become targets for the IRA. We should use more troops who can match the element of surprise. I am talking about covert activity. I have little conscience about reading of the death in combat of scores of IRA men, shot by members of the SAS and never again able to bomb or maim or devastate. The surprise enjoyed by these reprobates must be matched by a similar policy.
Two groups can influence the future morale of terrorists. The first is the judiciary. For reasons best known to themselves, some judges in Northern Ireland have not been giving sentences commensurate with the crimes committed. Not far from my constituency a shop was destroyed. The cost of £250,000, had to be met by the taxpayers of the whole kingdom. The sentence for that crime was two years. In another case the sentence was nine months. People have received suspended sentences for crimes which have caused the most costly injury and damage.
One judge—it would be dangerous to name him; he may not share my political views—has shown a tremendous example in giving sentences commensurate with the crimes. The judiciary have an important role in undermining the morale, the administration and the organisation of the IRA. I earnestly suggest that they look again at recent trends to see whether they are best using legislation to meet terrorism head on.
The second group who could help to defeat terrorism is the Roman Catholic hierarchy. It is all very well for some eminent Roman Catholic clerics to condemn violence, but the significance of their condemnation is eroded when they also do everything they can to undermine the Secretary of State's and the Minister of State's determination not to be browbeaten into re-establishing political status.
There is one other way, apart from airing their ludicrous views of H block, in which the hierarchy could help, namely, by recognising that a man or


woman who kills a baby in a pram, or destroys an old-age pensioner, or blows a street sweeper to bits so that what is left of his body has to be buried in a plastic bag, should not be given a so-called Christian burial.
It is about time that the hierarchy had the guts to say that anyone who does that does not deserve a Christian burial. I can think of no greater psychological effect on the terrorists who claim to share she religious views of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, whose religion I do not denigrate. There would be no greater impact created than for the hierarchy of his Church to say that people who perpetrate these acts will not receive the succour and comfort of the Church. I disagree profoundly with the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, but I believe that its hierarchy has a significant part to play in the obtaining of more settled conditions in Northern Ireland. It has not grasped the nettle in the past. I urge it to begin to grasp the nettle right now.
I want to place the debate in perspective. The hon. Member for Belfast, West occasionally—I accept, unintentionally—creates the impression that what matters more than anything else is the safeguarding of individual liberties. I should hold that as the fundamental pursuit of every parliamentarian.
The realities of Northern Ireland are that 1,827 people have been mutilated and killed and £260 million worth of damage has been done in that small Province. Those 1,827 people deserved the right to live. Those who have lost their jobs as a consequence of violence22,000—have a right still to be in work tonight. So when the hon. Gentleman talks about safeguarding and securing the liberties of individuals, like every other great cause in life it must be balanced by the greatest good for the greatest number.
I am no blood-curdling politician, but I believe that this legislation is vital. Northern Ireland requires trained men whose task it is to encounter gunmen and to remove their effect and influence from society. The gunmen have not responded to the peace movement. The gunmen have not responded to the prattlings of Conservative Front Bench spokesmen in the last Administration who were flown

over in RAF aircraft and given tea and sticky buns. The gunmen have not responded to any political initiative, even though we disagree with it, evidenced by the hon. Member for Belfast, West. They are blinkered and rooted to a narrow gorge of violence and debauchery. There is only one way to deal with such men, and that is to remove them from society.
Having done that, let us establish that there is a political battle to be fought in Northern Ireland. There is a battle to be fought for the minds of the minority. My right hon. and hon. Friends have evidenced that we represent all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. We recognise, without shame, that we want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Many of the minority agree with that view. Many did right in the middle of the so-called 50 years of misrule in Ulster. About 71 per cent. of the community returned Unionist Members of Parliament, and there was not 71 per cent. Protestants in the constituencies. So then, as now, many of the religious minority agree with our political view and the progress that we have made in the House.
The price for challenging the right of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom is that those people should not be given special places as of right at any discussion table or in any negotiations or political settlement. They have made their choice. They want Ireland as their home. They are welcome to it any time they want to move, bag and baggage. Whilst they remain in Northern Ireland they must accept the rule of Her Majesty in Parliament. Let us not confuse the religious minority with the political minority.
We believe that we have made great progress for both Roman Catholics and Protestants. We wish that the order would obtain even greater progress by removing from Roman Catholic communities in particular those gunmen who have no interest in future efforts in this House to obtain a just and lasting peace as British citizens for both Roman Catholic and Protestant communities.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: It is a measure of the volume of bipartisan support for the struggle in this House against terrorism that my hon. Friend the


Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) should have gone out of his way to encourage the Secretary of State to appear on television more often to speak about the H block issue. Normally, the Opposition spend their time complaining that Ministers have too much coverage on television.
On this issue, as in so much else involving security, there is a genuine bipartisan—or multipartisan—approach. Of course, there will be differences of emphasis. But it is pleasant to see ideas that are proposed by Opposition Members taken up and implemented by Ministers.
I listened with particular pleasure to the emphasis that the Secretary of State gave this evening to the building up of the fraud squad. Too many people have a financial vested interest in the continuance of violence. Over the years many millions of pounds have been diverted into the pockets of the Goldfingers of terrorism.
The criminal ruler of Chicago in the days of prohibition, Al Capone, was able to terrify witnesses into silence and was finally brought to book by the income tax inspectors. We hope that successive Secretaries of State will be able to come to the Dispatch Box and talk not only of the convictions obtained for murder but of the convictions obtained for running protection rackets and other illegal financial operations.
I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the regular cadre of the Ulster Defence Regiment has grown to 2,386.
I note that exactly two years ago, in his maiden speech as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman announced that there was to be a substantial increase in the number of full-time members of the UDR. We welcomed that move. We had been pressing for it for many months. It has been a substantial success.
Earlier this year I had an opportunity to see some of those full-time soldiers of the UDR on an operational patrol. They all had their combat gloves. It was a cold evening. Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and his description of the length of time that it seems to take to get gloves for the part-time members of the UDR, I hope that

the positive result of this debate will be the rectification of this situation.
There can be no doubt of the high quality of the soldiers of the UDR. There can be no doubt about the high regard in which they are held by the law-abiding members of the public. I note that they are also held in high regard by the law-breaking minority of the public, because during the past year members of the UDR. on duty and, particularly, off duty, have been favourite targets for terrorist attacks. I note, as does the hon Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), that it has only too often been the Catholic members of that regiment and of the RUC who have been the victims of these attacks.
Membership of the UDR and of the RUC demands a high sense of public duty. For Catholic volunteers the pressures and the dangers are particularly high. In his maiden speech as Secretary of State two years ago, after the right hon. Gentleman had announced the increase in full-time members of the UDR. he went out of his way to—as he put it—encourage the political leaders of the minority party to encourage their people to join the UDR and the RUC. I am sure that we all regret that this has not happened. Any fresh initiatives on the part of the Government would certainly be welcome.
Meanwhile, the establishment of the UDR itself has been under review. with the recommendation that there should be certain changes in the company structure and an increase in the number of senior ncos. What steps are being taken to implement these recommendations? Could the Minister of State tell us— now or later —whether any further increases are planned in the regular element of the UDR?
I also agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) when he says that the time has come to think more deeply about the long-term role of the UDR. The need for this body of well-trained and well-disciplined experienced men will continue for many years, but its role may well have to change. It does not need a large committee to think about this problem. I note that one of the refreshing differences between the present Secretary of State and his predecessor is his comparative reluctance to set up


special committees at the drop of a hat whenever a problem emerges.
This evening we have heard calls from the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for a new look at the emergency provisions legalisation—calls made from two very different points of view. The hon. Member for Belfast. West said that he did not want to improve the legislation; wanted to abolish it. I want to see the legislation improved.
I had an opportunity recently of talking to Mr. Robin Eveleigh, who commanded a battalion in Northern Ireland and who has written a most remarkable book,"Peace Keeping in a Democratic Society ", which reinforces my views that we have not got the balance of legislation right. I do not think that it is right for a single community in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that it is right for the security forces themselves.
It is easier to renew legislation than to revise it. Renewal can be put through in an hour and a half. Revision will open Ministers to criticism from their nominal friends below the Gangway; it will take a lot of time and trouble. So there is a tendency to put it off. But it seems to me that the time to discuss the revision of the emergency powers legislation is not at a moment when there has been some fresh outrage but at a time when the level of violence, fortunately, is at a relatively low ebb, and the House can discuss matters more calmly than occasionally it has in the past. Alas, in the last few days, one has seen an increase in the tempo of violence.

Mr. Fitt: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it could have been deliberate policy of the Provisional IRA to engage in this campaign, knowing very well what effect it would have on Members of this House? The next time this legislation comes forward for renewal, may we not have another, similar spate of violence?

Mr. Goodhart: I suspect that the timing of the fire-bomb attacks was more associated with the visit of the Secretary of State to the United States in an attempt to get investment from there into Northern Ireland for the employment of all members of the community—something that the IRA does not want to see happen. Exactly why the IRA times its attacks as

it does is not a matter about which I can make a guess, any more than the hon. Gentleman can.
However, we know that the attacks took place. We know that what was burned and destroyed was not only shops and homes but the hopes and illusions that peace was coming and that we could get away from emergency provisions legislation. There is a need for it. There is a continuing need for the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland.
We should not only pass the order; we should send thanks to the security forces. For two Christmases a special appeal has been launched for the provision of special comforts for the security forces in Northern Ireland. Last year it was organised by SSAFA and this year it is ogranised by The Daily Telegraph. I am grateful to both for the work that they have done.
I note also that on both occasions the organisers have been surprised by the overwhelming response to the appeals. I am glad that the British public have said"Thank you"to our security forces. This House should say"Thank you"as well.

11.2 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It is only a few months since I spoke of my unwelcome record of having heard and taken part in more of these Northern Ireland debates in an official capacity than any other hon. Member.
I did not hear today a speech from either side of the House that could convince me that we can do away with the special powers legislation. Just about every speech on life in Northern Ireland gave more convincing evidence that the powers, which nobody wants, are continually needed.
In our last debate of this nature my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a particularly encouraging speech. If we look back over the past year we can see that his message then has been justified, and we view the speech he made a few hours ago in a similar light.
There have been setbacks, of course, and we can expect more. But that is only natural when we are dealing with the mindless, senseless violence that is the trade mark of the Provisional IRA. No


matter how much my right hon. Friend says it, the Provisionals do not seem to think that we mean what we say. The only thing we can do is to keep on reiterating it. Neither the Government nor the people of Northern Ireland will give ground to brutality and violence. We shall never recognise criminal thugs as political prisoners, and there will be no amnesty for the intimidators, the destroyers and the killers.
We have never pretended that there is an easy solution or that the road back to normality will be smooth, but we believe that we are on that road; and that, as my right hon. Friend suggested, gives us growing hope for the future.
The hon. Members for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to the prison system. I agree that the House should put on record its thanks to the security forces, all types of them, in Northern Ireland for the thankless job that is being done on our behalf.
The prison officers working in the H blocks have been singled out. There are eight H blocks, not three. Five are functioning normally, but there are three in which there is a dastardly way of protesting. All my sympathy goes to those who have to administrate the blocks.
I am not trying to minimise the difficulties in the prisons, but I think that we ought to keep them in some kind of proportion. The special category population, for example, has fallen by well over 200 since this time last year and now stands at fewer than 600. When we started phasing out special category, there were about 1,600 people in the special category group. That number has now fallen to fewer than 600. Nor should it be forgotten that the 350 or so engaged in the dirty protest are among a total convicted prison population of 2,246.
It must not be forgotten, either, that the protest is not, of course, about human rights. It is not about prison conditions, which are among the best in Europe. It is simply about a spurious claim on the part of convicted criminals for a so-called political status. What they seek is preferential treatment. Their motive is clear. They believe that if they secure recognition as a group of political prisoners, their sentences will in time be set aside. It is our task and that of this House to leave them in no doubt that they are wrong.

The rule of law demands tht all prisoners should be subjected to a humane regime within a framework of rules that apply to all prisoners and not just some prisoners. That is what we are endeavouring to achieve in Northern Ireland, and that is what Parliament has endorsed. If we are to succeed in our aim of doing away with the cycle of terrorism in Northern Ireland, we must continue to make it absolutely clear that there will be no amnesty.
I should like to have spelt out the prison system that we have in Northern Ireland, because it would stand spelling out. However, I am sure that the House will forgive me if I do not do that at this time of the evening. But I shall make available in the Library of the House at the earliest possible moment a straightforward statement of fact about conditions in the H blocks of the Maze prison.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for Abingdon for his reference to the propaganda value of the H blocks and the Maze. This, of course, is a delicate matter which we have to keep in mind. I do not want to provide any additional progaganda. In Northern Ireland itself and within the shores of this island, I think we have got the message across to the general public that the squalor in which some prisoners are living is simply one of their own choosing. But I take the point about the propaganda value else-were and, as my right hon. Friend said, he is looking at this carefully.
Our approach to the making of television programmes and to the media in general is simply stated. Any journalist is free to broadcast or write as he wishes about events in the Province. Although we may not always agree with the results, we do not believe in censorship or restriction. Many journalists can testify to the help and facilities which are given them in Northern Ireland. But I am sure that they will also testify to the fact that there is a need in the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to exercise discretion. Mistakes over here can possibly cause political embarrassment. Mistakes in Northern Ireland cost people's lives.

Mr. Powell: In what he has just said, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would include the deplorable habit into which the press sometimes falls of not reporting events—things which have happened, even things which have happened


and are attributed to the Provisional IRA —but of reporting threats of future action which are put out by the Provisional IRA, thus constituting themselves a kind of broadcasting organisation for the enemy of everyone in the Province.

Mr. Concannon: I am saying that there should be an acceptable form of discretion exercised by members of the press. As I say, mistakes in Northern Ireland terms cause not political embarrassment but the loss of people's lives.
The principal concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is the safety of life and property in the Province. Where there is even the remotest risk of lives being lost or property being damaged, he wishes journalists to exercise responsibility and sensitivity in the reporting of events. There have been a number of cases in which it could be argued that programmes on television led to or perhaps unintentionally encouraged acts of violence. I believe that greater care is now taken by the media, and I welcome that. But there are occasions when some programmes abandon any concept of responsibility and sensitivity. We had an example of this last night when an item was transmitted on the BBC"Nationwide"programme which purported to deal with conditions in the H block at Maze Prison. As an example of one-sided presentation of an issue it would be difficult to equal. The programme acknowledged that the protest was a propaganda exercise, but it then proceeded to act as a perfect vehicle for Provisional IRA propaganda.
It is significant that only a few days earlier the Northern Ireland region of the BBC in its"Spotlight"series presented a programme on the same subject which was balanced, accurate, critical in places, but at least informed. It did not attempt, as last night's programme did, to take sides.
I must say at once that the"Nationwide"programme was balanced later in the evening by an excellent programme on the Royal Victoria Hospital, which I hope all hon. Members saw.
After four and a half years in Northern Ireland, I have found that the people who are assassinated on their doorsteps are not just statistics to me. On many occa-

sions they are friends with whom I have worked. I can certainly say that about Albert Miles, who was the deputy governor of the Maze prison. I can only say that the antics of one television crew before, during and after the funeral left quite a lot to be desired.

Mr. Litterick: I did not see the programme in question last night. However, the Minister has chosen to use his ministerial prestige to make a judgment on what people in the independent media have done by way of interpreting the Northern Ireland situation. Can the Minister assure me that he has no ambition or desire to impose any kind of official censorship on our media people who wish to examine and interpret freely whatever political situation engrosses the attention of the nation?

Mr. Concannon: I said that at the start, and I say it again. We have no intention of censuring or restricting in any way at all. In fact we help the press tremendously in Northern Ireland. All I am asking is for the media to show a little responsibility and sensibility in these matters. As I have said, we have a security problem in Northern Ireland, with a lot of policemen and prison officers at risk. Mistakes in making programmes like this will cause political embarrassment in the rest of the United Kingdom, but we can all take political embarrassment—it is what we are here for. What I cannot accept lightly is that such insensitive programmes as this in Northern Ireland could cost people's lives.

Mr. Litterick: I appreciate what the Minister has said, but I hope that he, in turn, will appreciate that his comments so far have been general in character, and as a result—and I am sure that this is quite unwitting—he sounds like a member of the Politbureau in the comments he has made. [HoN. MEMBERS:"Nonsense ".] I am not finished yet. The Minister does himself an injustice in talking like that.

Mr. Concannon: There are certain things that Ministers have to put up with, but I think it is a bit rich that my hon. Friend should come out with that. [HoN. MEMBERS:"He ought to be ashamed of himself."].
Hon. Members have mentioned the reorganisation of the UDR and I should


like to put their minds at ease. The reorganisation was carried out after a routine inspection by the Ministry of Defence inspectorate of establishments. It was recommended that, to make the most efficient and effective use of available manpower in the UDR, certain companies should be amalgamated. When company amalgamations take place, account will be taken of local loyalties and associations so that men who have been serving together may continue to do so. This rationalisation will help to ensure that the UDR is organised in the most effective way to meet the increasing operational responsibilities placed upon it.
Men currently employed in non-operational jobs will be switched to more productive operational tasks. I stress that there will he no reduction in the overall strength of the regiment and the reorganisation will not reduce the need and opportunity for men and women to join the UDR.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Concannon: I have given way already.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is giving a wrong impression to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Concannon: The way I have been treated by one of my hon. Friends makes me hesitate to give way again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked about the average time that accused persons spend on remand. The average period for this year has been 40 weeks. Last year, the increasing success of the RUC resulted in a large number of people being charged with terrorist offences. One outcome was a steady increase in the number remanded in custody. This year, due to the reduction in the level of violence, the number of new remands has been lower, but a large number of accused persons still have to be dealt with by the courts.
Strenuous efforts to reduce the backlog have been made by the three agencies directly concerned—the police, the DPP and the courts. My right hon. Friend

has assured them of his concern to see waiting time reduced and to provide whatever resources and facilities may contribute to that end. There have been additions to the staff of detecting officers and to the staff of the DPP. The Lord Chief Justice is prepared to assign judges to preside at the six courts at the Belfast Commission and this arrangement will operate when there are enough cases ready to be heard to fill it.
The Lord Chief Justice has taken a close interest in ways to shorten the period between the committal proceedings and the trial. He has taken a number of steps to enable court hearings to be expedited and has informed my right hon. Friend that, in consultation with his judges and the DPP, he has decided to introduce a new procedure that he hopes will help to bring forward the hearing of criminal cases.
Under the new procedure, the defendant will, not later than six weeks after the date of his committal for trial, be bought before a judge in arraignment proceedings. That will enable the defendant's plea to be recorded and the court to obtain whatever information it needs to fix a date for the trial and will reduce the delays through unexpected pleas at a later date.
We welcome the Lord Chief Justice's decision and my right hon. Friend, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, is arranging to appoint a court listing officer for criminal cases. That officer's task will be to seek to secure the listing of criminal cases for hearing at the earliest possible date, bearing in mind the availability of defence counsel, witnesses and so on.
I hope that those steps will not only contribute to greater expedition in tie process of bringing accused persons to trial but will make it apparent to all that there is no question of delay being deliberately engineered by the Government or the prosecuting authorities. We are as concerned about this matter as is my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West.
In order to dispel any misunderstanding, let me say that in a recent count only 73 out of 1,400 accused persons had been on remand for more than a year and the number of people acquitted later was in single figures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) referred to one man having been arrested by the Army more than 300 times. I take that very seriously. My initial inquiries have not turned up the case, but I shall follow up the matter and will write to my hon. Friend after I have completed my inquiries. I hope that he will take it from me that I shall follow through on that subject.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked about the progress of the investigations into the series of three murders that have taken place in Newry since September. The three persons killed were members of, or may have been thought to have some connection with, the security forces. One person has been charged in respect of one incident and police investigations are continuing.
Cross-border co-operation between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary has continued to develop. Regular meetings on matters of mutual interest are held between senior officers of the two forces in order to exchange information and co-ordinate their efforts against the common enemy, terrorism. The Commissioner of the Garda visited Belfast for talks with the Chief Constable in September. Such contacts will continue in order to build up the already impressive level of practical co-operation achieved between the two police forces.
The Government believe that the best way to deal with fugitive offenders is by extradition. That is why we signed the Council of Europe convention on the suppression of terrorism. The Irish Government are aware of our views, but equally we are aware of their position. We shall continue to co-operate in whatever measures seem most likely within our respective jurisdictions to bring terrorists to justice.
The RUC is alert to the possibility of extra-territorial prosections provided by the criminal jurisdiction legislation, and it will not hesitate to make full use of it when suitable cases arise.
Many hon. Members referred to the godfathers. The hon. Member for Abingdon spoke of the godfathers of terrorism. We are committed to the proof of crimes in open court. There is no short cut. The answer lies in patient detective work.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the CID is growing speedily in size and professionalism. As I have said before, it is not the system that is lacking. All we need is the evidence to put these people away, and when we get it we shall do so. But we shall do so through the courts. There is no alternative unless we revert to detention, which is so abhorrent to everyone and which we all consider to have been such a mistake.
But with the godfathers there has to be the hit man. Before terrorist acts can be carried out, there must be someone to pull the trigger or carry the bomb. Such people must be held accountable. If we can neutralise the hit men and the carriers, the organisers will either neutralise themselves or be forced to do their own dirty work. Then they will become more vulnerable. That is when we need the evidence to present in open court.
As I have said on the occasion of this debate in the past, I do not think that the situation is normal or such that we could even think of asking the House to drop these provisions. I trust that anyone who is thinking of casting his vote against the order is not doing so in the hope that it will be lost. I do not think that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would forgive us if we did away with this legislation now.
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would think that we had gone stark raving mad if we did away with this legislation. I know that hon. Members find it abhorrent. I do, too. I never thought that I would assume the powers that I have in respect of Northern Ireland. They are, however, used very sparingly—

Mr. Litterick: They would not do in England.

Mr. Concannon: Of course, but the same situation does not apply in England. If my hon. Friend had to work in the conditions in which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) operate, who have murders and assassinations on their doorsteps, he would agree that individual liberties would have to be forsaken. The people of Northern Ireland are willing to accept that.

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is to vote against the order.

Mr. Concannon: I know that he is, but he does so with a tortured mind. He had not even planned originally to speak in the debate tonight. That indicates how worried he is about the matter.

Mr. Litterick: My hon. Friend is still voting against.

Mr. Concannon: I know, but my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West is honest enough to realise that if the House voted down this legislation tonight the only people who would thank us for doing so would be the Provisional IRA.

Mr. Litterick: This is appalling. The Minister is accusing an lion. Member of dishonesty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) has made a sufficient number of interventions from a sedentary position and when standing.

Mr. Concannon: I do not intend to prolong this argument with my hon. Frend. I think we can continue it in other places. I wish that at times he would give some credit to his governmental colleagues who undertake a hard day's work, sometimes in trying circumstances. It would be pleasant if he would sometimes give us the benefit of the doubt.
I commend the order to the House.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I am always concerned about the relevance of my party's interventions in debates on Northern Ireland. [HoN. MEMBERS:"Hear, hear."] I think I am wrong to he concerned, because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and it is right for Members of Parliament of all parties to be concerned about what is going on in the Province.
The House regrets the fact that the Secretary of State once again is asking for the renewal of these emergency provisions. We all share his obvious distaste for the necessity of this legislation. We should all appreciate the prompt withdrawal of the provisions relating to the suspension of habeas corpus. In the House recently he assured hon. Members that as soon as the dispute among prison

officers ended, the status quo would be reinstituted. The right hon. Gentleman rapidly kept his word.
The statistics on violence may have given grounds for cautious hope, but this hope was extinguished by the wave of bombings from mid-November. Therefore, there is no ground for restoring the normal judicial process.
Anybody who rises at this point in a debate should keep his remarks to a minimum. I am not here to extend the debate, but I wish to mention one or two points. If we are to agree to the extension of these provisions, it is essential that the detailed workings of the Act should be kept under constant review. The Secretary of State gave his word that this would be done.
I am concerned about the isolated incidents—and I admit that they are isolated —such as the killing of wildfowlers. Because Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, I found in my constituency many more wildfowlers who felt that they were more kindred to the wildfowlers who were killed than I found those who said"We come from Cambridgeshire, and they come from Northern Ireland." For that reason, I wrote to the Secretary of State expressing my concern, and he answered in a very proper manner.
I believe that it is helpful to circulate reports about the workings of controversial provisions. It is the duty of us all to make it clear to people in the United States that any money contributed to Ireland is likely to fall into the wrong hands and to lead to ends which are not thought likely when the money is given.
There are a number of specific points on which I should like to be assured that care is taken. I refer first to the detention of young people, and particularly to the detention of the mentally handicapped. I am concerned about the situation of the single judge who sits in the Diplock courts. I should like to see an investigation carried out into the possibilities of having a second judge or an assessor.
I think that there is a definite problem in the number of Catholics being recruited into the RUC. I know that over the years the Government have used Select Committees for no better purpose than to procrastinate, but I should like a committee to investigate the small number of Catholics who have been recruited into


the RUC, particularly as those Catholics who serve in the RUC tend to rise to high ranks.
Encouragement should be given to all those organisations which support the diminution of terrorism, but I think that this has to be done with care. I have received, as I am sure many others have, the Peace People's pamphlet entitled:
 The case for the replacement of the Emergency Provisions Act by normal judicial process.
If one reads the pamphlet, it sounds a convincing enough argument.
I have a copy of The Irish Times of 13th June, in which there is an illuminating article on the documents found in the flat of Seamus Twomey when he was arrested. One document contained instructions to prospective members of the Provisional wing. I should like to read two paragraphs of the advice that was given to these people.
The document says:
 The three-day and seven-day detention orders are breaking volunteers, and it is the Republican Army's fault for not indoctrinating volunteers with the psychological strength to resist interrogation.

That has to be a very good reason for extending the powers for which the Secretary of State is asking.

The dossier found in Mr. Twomey's flat ends with this statement:
Sinn Fein should be directed to infiltrate other organisations to win support for, and sympathy to, the movement. Sinn Fein should be re-educated and have a big role to play in publicity and propaganda departments, complaints and problems (making no room for RUC opportunism). It gains respect of the people which in turn leads to increased support for the cell.

I have been concerned because colleagues of mine have reaffirmed their support for the Troops Out movement. I should deplore, and so would a substantial majority of the members of my party, any movement which could only encourage the men of violence in Northern Ireland. Those in my party who believe that any aim would be achieved by removing troops from Northern Ireland are in a minority.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 10.

Division No. 11]
AYES
[11.34 p.m.


Archer, Bt Hon Peter
Faulds, Andrew
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Penhaligon, David


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bean, R. E.
Freud, Clement
Radlce, Giles


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
George Bruce
Rhodes James, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Graham, Ted
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Bradford, Rev Robert
Hardy, Peter
Roper, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Home Robertson, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted


Buchanan, Richard
Hunter, Adam
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire!


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Snape, Peter


Carmlchael, Nell
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


Carter, Ray
John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cohen, Stanley
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stoddart, David


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Stradling Thomas, J.


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Kilfedder, James
Strang, Gavin


Cowans, Harry
Lamborn, Harry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Tinn, James


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
McCusker, H.
Urwln, T. W.


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
McElhone, Ftpnk
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Crawshaw, Richard
McKay, Alan (Penlstone)
Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Cryer, Bob
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Klngswood)


Davidson, Arthur
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Weatherill, Bernard


Dempsey, James
Molyneaux, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dormand, J. D.
Monro, Hector
Whitlock, William


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Morton, George
Woodall, Alec


Dunlop, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Woof, Robert


Dunnet, Jack
Neave, Airey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Eadie, Alex
Newton, Tony



English, Michael
Noble, Mike
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Evans, John (Newton)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James Hamilton




NOES


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mikardo, Ian



Flannery, Martin
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lamond, James
Selby, Harry
Mr. Stan Thorne and


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Tom Litterick


Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.

GLUE SNIFFING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

11.46 p.m.

Mr. James Dempsey: I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the vexed problem technically known as solvent inhaling, but more commonly known as glue sniffing. I have done my best by writing to Ministers to get them to take a more active attitude in dealing with this problem, but so far without much success. Therefore, I feel that we should understand the nature of the problem.
At present, we do not know how many young people throughout the country are involved in this dangerous practice. But one district out of five in a large health authority known to the Minister has been sufficiently public-spirited, in co-operation with the Strathclyde police, to attempt to do something over the past two and a half years.
When I discussed this matter with the officers concerned, they informed me that in that time no fewer than 600 young people under the age of 18 had been looked at, examined and treated for this dangerous addiction to glue sniffing. Of those 600, a fair number were under 12 years of age. I was exceedingly distressed to learn that one in every six of those young people was a female, and the number is increasing. The gap between the numbers of young male and female glue sniffers is now narrowing. Indeed, doctors take the view that, though these figures may seem alarming, they are only the tip of the iceberg. Those figures were obtained and checked no later than Monday of this week to satisfy me that they were accurate. That is an indication of

the nature and seriousness of the problem confronting us.
It is estimated that no fewer than 17 people have died in the past few years as a result of glue sniffing. In my constituency, for example, a few young boys who had been glue sniffing and who were feeling high lit a fire with petrol. That fire was thrown at a 14-year-old constituent who was so seriously burned that he died in hospital. That accident was a consequence of glue sniffing. It should indicate that something must be done quickly if we are to tackle the problem effectively.
I understand that the Minister's argument, as he explained at Question Time. is that health education is the answer. That might be the case from the preventive angle. But we fall down on the curative aspect of the problem. It might be possible to prevent young people from beginning to indulge in this practice, but what are we doing about those who are now addicted to glue sniffing? We need something which is more effective than preventive treatment. We require curative treatment.
A clinic has been established by a district in a large health authority area. I suggest that the Minister should consider duplicating that type of clinic in large industrial areas so that parents can take young people there without consulting a doctor or the police. At such a place young people could receive expert treatment for their problems. Even teachers, policemen and others of good will could take young people there when the parents are not co-operative. This is one of the ways of tackling the problem more effectively.
Another way of tackling the problem is by insisting that manufacturers do research into eliminating components that have these grave characteristics in commodities which are sold over the counter and which can, by misuse, adversely affect health or even be dangerous to life. Those steps could be taken voluntarily at present.
I believe that we should go even further. I still believe that these commodities should be prohibited to persons


under the age of 18 years. I understand that the argument against that suggestion is that there are too many such commodities.
But the problem is due mainly to the misuse of a handful of products. Those products could be controlled and their sale to young people banned. That would narrow down the area that we should tackle. The argument that too many commodities are involved is not valid.
The same could apply to other items that are restricted to young persons. It is no trouble to find the component parts of alcohol and make one's own brew. But we do not say that we should not ban the sale of alcohol to those who are under 18 because they can buy the components. We still ban the sale of alcohol to avoid misuse of that commodity. We should do likewise with the handful of commodities which are the major cause of this problem.
If the 'Minister visits a chemist's shop he will find that pharmacists have wide discretion to withhold the sale of a number of goods to young people. That is the law. There is no reason why we should not give retailers similar authority to withhold those commodities which are thought to be harmful to the health of young people.
We are duty bound to do something. I am reminded of the recent case in Glasgow sheriff court where the deputy procurator fiscal prosecuted a retailer for wilfully, culpably and recklessly selling glue, the vapours of which—so the fiscal said—the retailer knew young people would inhale. Yet the sheriff could find only one decision, that of not guilty, because it was not against the law. But the sheriff said that this was a matter that Parliament should be considering. Here we see being reinforced the evidence that there is a need to tackle this problem in a better and more energetic fashion—and along the lines I am suggesting.
Even Her Majesty's Chief Inspector. of Constabulary, for the first time, in his annual report this year, spelt out the problem of glue sniffing and the dangerous trends and the effects that it was having on the health and the lives of young people. Even he said that this was a matter that may be worthy of legislation and consideration by Parliament. When we have the law speaking out, in view

of the accidents that we have experienced, and when we see the effect in one particular section of a very large area, it is obvious that we should do something much more effective than we have been doing in the past.
I am not in the least impressed by the argument that we might publicise something if we raise it in Parliament. I do not think that we could give this matter any more publicity than it has had in the past few months. But it is wrong and an abdication of our parliamentary duties to sweep under the carpet something which has tendencies of that nature, and which creates dangers for the existence of our young population, without doing our very best to draw it to the attention of the authorities, to those who have power to take action, and to prevail upon them to take action as soon as possible.
That is why I have raised the matter tonight. This is not something that is peculiar to my part of Scotland or to the West of Scotland. Of course it is not, although, as I have said, I have had my own experiences of the matter. I repeat that I know of a boy of 14 who suffered fatal burns arising out of glue sniffing. But the problem is much more widespread I have had representations made to me from the West of Scotland, from the East of Scotland, from Northern England, from the Midlands and from Wales, all asking, in the name of goodness and of protecting young people from this dangerous addiction, that Parliament should act immediately, and be seen to be acting, in order to deal effectively with the problem.
I am hoping, therefore, that as a result of this debate the Minister will give further consideration to this matter. I hope that he will again examine all the prospects. I have taken up the matter with the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Prices and Consumer Protection and for the Home Department in an effort to spell out the dangers arising from this regrettable practice and to make an appeal that the steps I have suggested, plus others which may emerge from a debate of this nature, be put into effect, in the hope that by implementing this action we can do something about the problem.
Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary mentioned the possible need for legislation. I do not have criminal legislation in mind. I believe that there is a


need for caring legislation. Our police can only speak to those concerned and appeal to their parents to co-operate. They need teeth, for example, to send young people to the children's hearings. They are the authority that could examine cases and could prescribe and arrange the treatment to enable young people to overcome this serious challenge which could very well affect their health not merely for a few months but possibly for life.
It is in the interests of protecting these young people from this most dangerous practice that I hope that the debate and whatever may follow will result in creating immediate action by the Government with a view to giving these young people that protection. Of course, we require the co-operation of all concerned. I should like to see more co-operation from traders. We made an effort to persuade shopkeepers not to sell these dangerous commodities to young people, and even to put them out of reach in the stores. But we did not get that cooperation. One always got the few unscrupulous traders anxious to make a quick pound, and willing to sell such items to young people, knowing perfectly well that they are bound to injure their health and their possible future.
I hope that, following this debate, the Minister will decide that additional steps must be taken with a view to reducing the catastrophe of this dangerous practice and in the hope that we can eliminate it from the lives of the present young generation.

12.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I begin by totally rejecting the allegation of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that either I or any other Minister is trying to sweep this problem under the carpet.

Mr. Dempsey: I did not say that.

Mr. Ewing: I assure my hon. Friend that he is not the only Member who is concerned about this problem. For example, I have had letters from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who represents Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) and many others of my hon. Friends about the problem. I repeat that my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie

is not the only one concerned about this serious and vexed question.
I must in all honesty say that I sometimes wonder about the motives behind the raising of this problem. Even though f have begun my remarks by being rather critical of my hon. Friend, I am nevertheless grateful to him for raising this important topic. Like him and those other hon. Friends I have mentioned, I have been concerned for some time about this practice. But it is important to look at the matter in context.
First, it is important to be clear what we are talking about. Glue sniffing is a very simple term, but it is far too simple. What we are concerned about is the inhalation for the toxic effects of various volatile hydrocarbon solvents which are present in a considerable number of products in common domestic use.
My hon. Friend talks about banning sales of commodities. I shall not name them, but he would be astonished at the substances which are used in the practice, which we all regret. In addition to glues, there is a wide range of products which can be misused. I do not propose to identify them specifically, since I do not want to put ideas into the heads of young people. When properly used, all these products, including glue, are quite safe. and danger arises only from deliberate misuse, sometimes involving a plastic bag over the head in order to ensure that a greater concentration of the vapours is available for inhalation. We are dealing, therefore, with solvent sniffing and not glue sniffing.
I understand that the children who are misguided enough to indulge in the abuse of solvents do so because of the intoxicating effects. But unfortunately, as my hon. Frend has said, there can be, and sometimes are, serious consequences. Accidents through misuse of the plastic bag, or the inhalation of vomit, can result in asphyxiation, and this can be fatal. But quite apart from this, regular and prolonged indulgence in the practice can cause brain damage, or liver and kidney damage. There is at the moment little evidence to suggest that the practice is indulged in to this extent.
The pattern very largely seems to be one of limited and scattered outbreaks among groups of young people, and not


a continuing and widespread habit. We do not have any reliable statistics, but we have had no recent reports from the police or from social work departments to indicate that there has been any recent increase in the practice. I am aware of the register of solvent users in the east of Glasgow, which has been the subject of press comment. My hon. Friend commented on it tonight. That register is maintained by the eastern district of the Greater Glasgow health board. It was started at the end of 1975 or the beginning of 1976 and is simply a cumulative record of the names of reported solvent sniffers since that time. The total now is about 600, but it is not known how many of the individuals recorded have now ceased the practice. It is important that I make clear that the 600 recorded on that register are there because they have been identified at one time or another as being solvent sniffers, but it is highly likely that a fair number of them have ceased the practice.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the need to legislate for a minimum age limit on the sale of glue. This clearly is a matter we have considered carefully over a period. In theory, to cut off the supply of solvents by legislating against the supply of these substances to children appears simple, but it is just not so. We all know the difficulty for police and traders in relation to the supply of alcohol and fireworks to the young. In the case of solvents we are dealing with a much wider range of substances, not only glues, which are in everyday use and are available in a very wide range of retailers.
Moreover, it is important to appreciate that many of the substances that may be used for sniffing are readily available in most households, and a number are perfectly proper substances for children to buy and use correctly. It is only when they are flagrantly and intentionally misused that they become dangerous, and in these circumstances the Government do not believe that it would be justifiable or practical to ban, for sale to children, substances containing solvents which the very great majority will use correctly and harmlessly. The wide range of substances capable of being misused also makes it doubtful whether a ban on sale to children would in fact limit supply.
My hon. Friend mentioned the report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for 1977, in which he said that the introduction of legislation might be considered in relation to unscrupulous or unsuspecting dealers in areas where sniffing is practised who, after being advised by the police to be cautious on the sale of solvents to children, continue to sell them. My hon. Friend quoted only part of the report. It is noteworthy that it also says:
The police have been concerned about the spread of this insidious practice for some time and with the full co-operation of medical and social work services, children found to have been indulging are warned of the inherent dangers in the presence of their parents who are advised to consult their family doctor. These matters are handled sympathetically and confidentially with the welfare and safety of the child accorded paramount importance. Although the abuse of solvents is not an offence, repeated instances following police warnings to parents could indicate that the child is beyond parental control necessitating consideration by the Reporter to a Children's Panel. Combined action involving police and other agencies is at present the most realistic way to control the problem.
This last sentence is the crux of the problem and is the line supported by those closest to and most experienced in dealing with the problem. I cannot possibly condone the action of shopkeepers who sell solvent-based materials to children where there are grounds for believing that they will be misused; but I do not believe that there are many shopkeepers who would be so irresponsible.
I turn now to the steps which my Department and others have taken to contain and eliminate the practice of solvent sniffing. We believe the answer lies, as my hon. Friend suspects, in health education and in early identification of the problem when it arises. To this end, the Scottish Departments wrote on behalf of the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the health boards, in June and July of this year to all directors of social work, directors of education, chief constables and chief administrative medical officers in Scotland. These letters stressed the Government's view that health education, rather than legislation, was the best way of dealing with the problem of solvent sniffing and indicated that coordinated action by all concerned was required. It was also suggested, and I believe correctly, that care should be


taken to avoid unnecessary publicity since this could be counter-productive and attract more people to experiment. The problem of solvent sniffing was not to be specially highlighted, but should be dealt with as part of a comprehensive programme of health education and in association with other problems of misuse, such as those related to drugs and alcohol.
The letters indicated three main needs in addition to the health education programme. These were, first, early recogtion of the problem by those likely to come into contact with sniffers. Professional staff have already been given a deal of information on this in the professional press, and in some areas, including Strathclyde, pamphlets for parents and others likely to be involved with children have been widely distributed. The pamphlets for parents are distributed by the police and social workers. The Scottish health education unit has also widely circulated, through education authorities and social work departments, a booklet on"Drugs and Young People in Scotland"which was published in November 1977 and which includes a section on solvent sniffing. More than 16,000 copies of this booklet have been issued. I take the view that awareness of the problem by those likely to be involved must have been increased very substantially by these steps.
The second need is knowledge of the action to be taken and the assistance available. Most cases are dealt with by counselling, but some require psychiatric help or medical treatment. In many cases the children involved in experimentation also have social difficulties manifested, for example, by truancy or juvenile delinquency, and some are already known to police community involvement branches or are under supervision to social work departments. The full range of facilities generally available to children in trouble are available to solvent sniffers. It is apparent from the evidence we have that the practice of solvent sniffing is more pronounced in areas of deprivation. The more that can be done to improve standards in such areas, the less I believe will be the incidence of solvent sniffing.
The third need which was identified was co-ordination of local effort to provide information, training and services, and the letters suggested that the coordinating role should be undertaken by the joint liaison committees recommended for establishment between local authorities and health authorities. Where separate sub-committees have been established for problems of drug abuse, these sub-committees should also cover solvent abuse. Such arrangements have already been implemented in the particular problem area of Strathclyde, and with the increasing awareness of all concerned I am hopeful that we will shortly see the problem diminishing.
Perhaps, before closing, I should make clear the other possibilities for action which we have considered and have found unacceptable. The first would be to make the practice of solvent sniffing illegal. If an offence is created, people expect it to be enforced. There are one or two other possibilities, such as labelling of bottles and packages, all of which have been considered.
I want to assure my hon. Friend that we are just as concerned as he is. I want also, through him, to assure his constituents and those of every other hon. Member that we are anxious to see an end to this regrettable practice of solvent sniffing. We are not convinced at this stage that legislation is the answer to the problem. We are convinced that parental responsibility combined with health education is the answer. We hope that, as we move on in the way that we have been going, with the distribution of leaflets, with making available the services of the police community involvement departments and taking all the action that I have described, we shall be able to convince people of the advisability of stopping this undesirable, regrettable and very dangerous habit—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at sixteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.